< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo  (Read 13259 times)

Offline tstuart34

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 885
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2015, 07:13:52 PM »
Most of the .223/5.56 at Cabela's says not available on line. Wal Mart was cleaned out in a day. I felt like the panic was just subsiding. Only good thing is I really don't need any .223.
Is this all 223 or just the green tip stuff?


Edit:

So I'm just trying to understand this all... Its only green tipped steel pen stuff or does it affect the cheap American eagle and PMC stuff also?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 07:29:37 PM by tstuart34 »

Offline skydve76

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 314
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #61 on: March 01, 2015, 07:23:27 PM »
Its starts with all 223, then all ar parts and ars, then heads to 9mm and finally 22lr.

When you figure out why let me know.  This is why on facebook I see someone selling overpriced 22 or 223 or a handgun, I tell them where to stick it. 

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2015, 07:35:26 PM »
Is this all 223 or just the green tip stuff?


Edit:

So I'm just trying to understand this all... Its only green tipped steel pen stuff or does it affect the cheap American eagle and PMC stuff also?

At this time the ban only includes M855/SS109 designated 62 grain 5.56x45 ammo that has a partial tungsten steel core. The run on that ammo has overflowed to all .223 and 5.56x45 "plinking ammo" as well as more expensive varieties that are normally up to and even some over 50 cents per round.

demand has waaaaayyyy surpassed supply, much like the .22lr situation started out.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Mntnman

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Posts: 509
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2015, 07:48:47 PM »
Is this all 223 or just the green tip stuff?


Edit:

So I'm just trying to understand this all... Its only green tipped steel pen stuff or does it affect the cheap American eagle and PMC stuff also?

To clarify, I think the reason they aren't selling it online is because of the huge sudden demand. People are grabbing up all they can out of fear. Some 5.56 could be added to the cart and hunting type bullets.

Offline whatsit

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 387
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2015, 08:11:31 AM »
I still haven't seen an official NFOA response to the ATF or our congress critters. Did I miss it?

The Georgia Carry group has a GREAT open letter that can be found here:
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/georgia-gun-rights-group-tears-apart-atfs-proposed-m855-ban-with-their-comments/


Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2015, 09:35:13 AM »
The Omaha Weird Herald has a story on this today. I guess they didn't bother to ask the NFOA for it's comments.   ::)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2015, 07:18:20 PM »
If you folks really want to see what we are up against as in anti-gunners and downright idiots, I suggest you read the OWH's Facebook post about the above mentioned article.  Oy vey!!

https://www.facebook.com/WorldHerald?fref=nf
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline gsd

  • 2013 NFOA Firearm Rights Champion award winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 1831
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2015, 08:07:12 PM »
If you folks really want to see what we are up against as in anti-gunners and downright idiots, I suggest you read the OWH's Facebook post about the above mentioned article.  Oy vey!!

https://www.facebook.com/WorldHerald?fref=nf

FFS...I feel stupider just for attempting to read some of those comments.
It is highly likely the above post may offend you. I'm fine with that.

Offline GreggL

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Posts: 153
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2015, 10:15:32 PM »

At this point, with it appearing that the ATF is making up whatever standards they want to achieve their goals
(as apposed to honoring the Constitution, or even following the law as it is written) does 7N6 ammo banned
last year, or the steel core 7.62x39 Russian made ammo banned in 1994, really meet the the standards as set
forth by law?  Just wondering.
Government not being restrained by the Constitution as written is tyranny pure and simple.

Offline AAllen

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 4275
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2015, 07:31:45 PM »
At this point, with it appearing that the ATF is making up whatever standards they want to achieve their goals
(as apposed to honoring the Constitution, or even following the law as it is written) does 7N6 ammo banned
last year, or the steel core 7.62x39 Russian made ammo banned in 1994, really meet the the standards as set
forth by law?  Just wondering.

Don't know about the 7n6 but the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 both are constructed the same as the 7.62x54r that is still commonally available.  So technically no it does not meet the discription given in the law passed by congress.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2015, 08:05:20 PM »
The 7n6 was banned mainly because some idiot submitted a 5.45x39 AK pistol to the ATF for importation to the US.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Mntnman

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Posts: 509
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2015, 08:22:26 PM »
The 7n6 was banned mainly because some idiot submitted a 5.45x39 AK pistol to the ATF for importation to the US.

Careful, that is divisive language that the antis love for us to use in keeping us from coming together and reclaiming our rights. No reason we shouldn't have 5.45x39 AK pistols.

Offline bbauman

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 21
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2015, 08:41:45 PM »
The TV news articles I have seen on this talk about how we feel it is against our second amendment rights. Those that want to add an anti slant add 'to be able to purchase armor piercing ammunition'. 

Has anyone seen where they talk about how this is flat out against the definition of armor piercing?

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2015, 01:56:20 PM »
House letter to the ATF: https://dcpr00gbauvhc.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1507341/letter-to-atf-director-jones-apa-framework-final.pdf

Signed by Fortenberry, but not by Adrian Smith or Ashford. 
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Mali

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 1718
  • My life, my rights.
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2015, 02:42:50 PM »
Signed by Fortenberry, but not by Adrian Smith or Ashford. 
With penmanship like that how can you tell? :D
Well written and I am interested to hear what the reply will be by end of next week.  Is there any weight behind the deadline or can the BATF "blow them off"?
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2015, 02:51:55 PM »
Posted yesterday from an Attorney who is "in the know"...

Quote
I spoke with the ATF today and have been told the following:

Extension has not been granted. Deadline is still March 16 for comments. If and when the deadline is extended, the ATF will post the notice on the website. After the deadline passes, the ATF will respond to comments. There is no set timeline for implementation of the rule.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2015, 03:02:29 PM »
SAF Authorizes Court Action If .223 Ammo Ban Is Implemented


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has authorized court action if the proposed ban on .223-caliber ammunition is implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the foundation’s general counsel has warned in a letter to BATFE Director B. Todd Jones.

Writing for SAF, general counsel Miko Tempski tells Jones, “This proposal is just an attempt to limit firearms rights because the President’s other such attempts have been blocked through constitutional checks and balances on his power.

“Should the BATFE lawlessly proceed on this path,” Tempski warns, “SAF intends to call on those checks and balances to stop the Administration’s executive overreach again.”

Tempski’s three-page letter dissects the BATFE proposal, noting repeatedly that M855 ammunition at the center of this controversy “is not armor piercing pursuant to the definition in the statute.” The federal provisions requires that a cartridge fire a “full jacketed projectile large than .22-caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun…,” or to otherwise be fit for use in a handgun and have a core “entirely constructed” form a specific list of non-lead metals to be prohibited.

Tempski explained that the M855 round does not meet either of these criteria. He said the first definition, “fails immediately as the 5.56 x 45 mm round is not designed and intended for use in a handgun,” and he questioned the ATF’s honesty with regard to the second definition, noting that a “small tip of steel making up less than 1/6th of the projectile cannot be used to claim the bullet or its core are “entirely” steel.

“The proposed framework,” he writes, “intends to define the intended purpose of ammunition based on the availability of certain types of handguns made for it. Such a circular definition is highly illogical in any context.”

The comment period remains open through March 16. People may submit comments to:


Email: APAComments@atf.gov


Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline depserv

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 870
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2015, 08:20:21 AM »
Probably everyone here gets NRA alerts, but in case someone doesn't, here's a good piece pointing out that a spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police has further exposed the lie this pending illegal edict is based in. 
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/police-say-ar-15-bullet-up-for-ban-is-not-a-threat-countering-atf-white-house/article/2560964#.VPXltbmeEoA.twitter

One thing that bothers me about this entire debate is that no one seems to be talking about the illegality of sporting use language in gun laws.  It has been clearly established by the High Court that sporting purpose is not what the right is about: the right is to keep and bear ARMS, not have dangerous toys we can go out and have fun with (because sport, by definition, means something done just for fun). 

Even the stated purpose of the law against armor-piercing ammunition is illegal.  This is copied from the Wikipedia entry on the Heller Decision:

 "(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

If the purpose, or a purpose, of the law was to make sure citizens could be capable of fighting a standing army or select militia (like for example the government-armed militias that took part in the Rwanda genocide), then it should be illegal to say that a certain type of bullet is illegal because it gives citizens a capacity to fight government agents, such as a bullet that can or is designed to penetrate body armor worn by police.  We are arguing details of this thing when every bit of it is fundamentally flawed and should be thrown out.   
The liberal cult seeks destruction of the American Republic like water seeks low ground.

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2015, 03:17:12 PM »
*deleted* 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 03:31:43 PM by GreyGeek »

Offline David Hineline

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Location: South Sioux City
  • Posts: 562
Re: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo
« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2015, 03:25:13 AM »
President Regan the one who banned new machinegun ownership, is also the one who signed the laws against AP handgun ammo.  So I guess we can keep blaming the Democrats if we want.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37785
Machinegun owners blow thier load with one pull of the trigger