Author Topic: ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo (Read 13264 times)

RobertH · « **on:** February 13, 2015, 08:50:18 PM »

ATF is looking to reclassify "armor piercing" ammo, like the M855 and SS109 ammo... all because of AR-pistols. first the Sig brace and now this.... sneaky back door anti-gun rulings. but there is a comment period. it ends March 16, 2015.

the NFOA needs to send them a comment. i will be working on my comments as well.

read ATF release here: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

AWick · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2015, 09:45:07 AM »

Can we work up a literal line-by-line reading of the actual US Code and show them that they are COMPLETELY outside the law on this? I'm working on one, but my legalese isn't as sharp as some folks around here.

depserv · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2015, 09:50:56 AM »

In spite of its imperfections, the Heller decision should have made it clear, for those who hadn't already known, that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting: the right is to keep and bear ARMS. This makes all sporting purpose language in any gun control law, including the '68 GCA, ILLEGAL. Getting that language removed is the critical path in any effort to defend the right to keep and bear arms. It would do much to solve the current problem this thread is about and other problems too. Anything we do that does not address that root problem will be at best a bandaid.

The Heller decision makes much reference to arms being useful to a militia that would allow the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. This is an obvious purpose of the right even without their mention of it. If the American people ever do have to defend themselves against such a government, or an entity like the UN for example, armor-piercing bullets would be an important part of their arsenal. If the purpose (or a purpose) of the right is to allow the people to have the means to defend themselves against a government force, a law that has a stated purpose of keeping American citizens from having that ability ought to be illegal. They can't legally say that law-abiding citizens can't have a certain type of bullet by virtue of that bullet giving the people the ability to fight government agents, i.e., the police in this case.

Of course there's the way it ought to be and there's the way it is. Parts of the Heller decision are badly written and allow usurpations that should be illegal. And many Americans are more than willing to give up parts of their freedom that they have been led to believe don't matter to them. But those who seek to defend our Second Amendment rights should not give in to such things. If there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the reason for that right is that armed people can better resist tyranny, then weapons suited to that purpose should be available to us.

There has to be such a thing as a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right, but what is being done these days in the name of gun control is very far onto the unreasonable side of any realistic definition of what is reasonable. And laws based on the cop killer bullet lie are a case in point.

DenmanShooter · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2015, 01:53:56 PM »

Does anyone have a link to the site to make a comment on this to ATF?

sh68137 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2015, 02:52:35 PM »

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
? ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

GreyGeek · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2015, 03:35:31 PM »

The next step will be reclassification of weapons that can exceed 500 meters with high accuracy, i.e., sniper equipment. They'll write regs to outlaw combinations of rifles, scopes and bullets that can be used as such, "to protect law officers" (or the Library of Congress's SWAT team, or the EPA's SWAT team, or the BLM SWAT team, etc...)

DenmanShooter · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2015, 04:57:57 PM »

Quote from: sh68137 on February 14, 2015, 02:52:35 PM

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
? ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

That's an email address.

RobertH · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2015, 06:16:44 PM »

Quote from: DenmanShooter on February 14, 2015, 04:57:57 PM

That's an email address.

i think thats how we get to comment.

remember: be nice, courteous, how it will impact you (or the economy, etc) and provide facts if possible.

depserv · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2015, 07:55:28 PM »

Quote from: GreyGeek on February 14, 2015, 03:35:31 PM

The next step will be reclassification of weapons that can exceed 500 meters with high accuracy, i.e., sniper equipment. They'll write regs to outlaw combinations of rifles, scopes and bullets that can be used as such, "to protect law officers" (or the Library of Congress's SWAT team, or the EPA's SWAT team, or the BLM SWAT team, etc...)

I would expect something like that to have followed a ban on so-called assault weapons if that attempt had not had such strong resistance, because all guns kill efficiently, each in their own way. They went after handguns with the slogan Saturday night special (and failed). Ammo with the cop-killer-bullet lie (this scam is still ongoing). State-of-the-art materials with the plastic gun lie.

Snipers killed JFK and MLK, and the Texas Tower incident was the deadliest mass shooting until Virginia Tech in '07, so I can see a big lie campaign aimed at what are now called legitimate sporting purpose deer and target rifles, but will be renamed sniper rifles. I'd expect them to go for something like minimum group size at some range, which could be measured by government agents, maybe because beyond a certain range the Secret Service can't have complete control or something. Or maybe deer hunting should only be done with black powder rifles, because if you can't get it done with one shot you shouldn't be hunting (like they said about getting it done with 6 during the first assault weapon campaign). Or long range rifles have to be kept locked up in a government armory, to be checked out for sighting in and deer season, with all ammo accounted for (I actually had a discussion with a liberal several years ago where he proposed that idea; he was being serious, and was trying to show how open-minded he was about gun control and hunting).

And how will they go after shotguns? Well, any shotgun can be converted to a "sawed-off" shotgun, which I guess is so terribly deadly that you can go to prison just for having one.

GreyGeek · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2015, 06:52:43 AM »

While the ATF does the frontal assault on the 2nd Amendment, Obama opened a second front with "Operation Chokepoint".
Wikipedia it.

Burnsy87 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2015, 05:24:41 PM »

We have to hit this hard.

As already stated, being a mouthy jerk will not help our cause. Be professional, courteous, and polite. "LOL YOU GUYS SUCK F U" doesn't make us look good.

We need to start a legislative wave to stop the ATF from creating laws, circumventing the legislative process. This is unacceptable.

FarmerRick · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:06:32 AM »

From Widener's:

Quote

DUE TO THE OVERWHELMING DEMAND FOR M855 AMMUNITION AND COMPONENTS, WE ARE CURRENTLY AT LEAST 7-14 DAYS BEHIND IN SHIPPING. Also, we have a small amount of IMI M855 ammunition inbound (coming this week Feb,18) for $539.00 / 1200 rounds + shipping. We believe this MAY be the last of IMI M855. We could have sold it all to one buyer for more than $539.00, but we are going to sell it to our customers with LIMIT ONE CASE PER CUSTOMER.

Regarding M855, we are not sure what is going to happen. If there is no ban, then prices may drop, but not for a while, (if ever). Frankly, this has caused another round of panic buying and we are trying our best to fill the orders. A limited amount of Lake City XM855 is also inbound and will be for sale upon arrival.

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:10:54 AM »

The comment period for the ban is over. The only opportunity for comment, at this point, is on how M855 and SS109 will be removed from the civilian market.

FarmerRick · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2015, 01:22:54 PM »

Quote from: Mudinyeri on February 16, 2015, 10:10:54 AM

The comment period for the ban is over. The only opportunity for comment, at this point, is on how M855 and SS109 will be removed from the civilian market.

The comment period is over MARCH 16th, not Feb. 16th.

Quote

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
? ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mali · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2015, 02:43:13 PM »

Does somebody have a talking point guide on this? I would like to send a comment to the ATF, but just don't have enough understanding to be able to successfully say anything more than "I don't appreciate your attempt to take my ammunition away because you found out how hard it would be to take my gun away."

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2015, 02:55:23 PM »

Quote from: FarmerRick on February 16, 2015, 01:22:54 PM

The comment period is over MARCH 16th, not Feb. 16th.

See my original statement. The comment period on the ban is over. Comments on the implementation of the ban are being accepted until March 16, 2015.

FarmerRick · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2015, 06:53:16 PM »

Quote from: Mudinyeri on February 16, 2015, 02:55:23 PM

See my original statement. The comment period on the ban is over. Comments on the implementation of the ban are being accepted until March 16, 2015.

Yeah, my mistake. I'm afraid letters will be useless at this point...

also, FBHO

DenmanShooter · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2015, 07:03:24 PM »

This is what I sent, but I see now it is too late for comment.

Well they got this anyway...

As a hunting enthusiast and firearms sportsman, I am opposed to your seemingly arbitrary proposal to ban certain ammunition which has been already exempted by federal law from the so called “armor piercing” ban.

M855 and ss109 ammo has long been the standard ammo for the modern sporting rifle. Changing this exemption will place an undue burden on the millions of legal gun owners in this country and harm the various manufacturers of said ammunition.

Also the burden on the legitimate consumer, lawful and legal gun owners, will be onerous economically. Prices have already risen as a result of the mere mention of the placing of a ban on this ammunition.

Your own statistics show this ammunition and the types of firearms which use this ammunition are rarely if ever used in crime.

After the removal of the prohibition on many of these types of firearms, your own data indicate crime has actually dropped.

As a citizen of these United States of America, I have a profound love for the constitution and the Bill of Rights of this great country. This is an unfair and unlawful violation of the 2nd Amendment and a gross misapplication of the spirit of the 1968 GCA upon which you are using to base this proposed rule change.

I respectfully ask you to withdraw this proposal and maintain the status quo with regards to this issue.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

DenmanShooter · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2015, 07:12:47 PM »

Quote from: FarmerRick on February 16, 2015, 06:53:16 PM

Yeah, my mistake. I'm afraid letters will be useless at this point...

also, FBHO

I went back a read the proposal gain and am fairly certain MARCH 16 is the valid date for comment. Send those letters.

whatsit · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2015, 07:58:47 PM »

Here's a good explanation, I think: