Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 14, 2015
Author: nra
Post Date: 2015-02-14 13:46:27 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 17264
Comments: 90
www.nraila.org BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo Friday, February 13, 2015 In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress. View Related Articles It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible. By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “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, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles: Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge. Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes. BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments. How to comment – from the BATFE 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 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#10. To: tpaine (#0)
I'm not real sure what they intend to accomplish with this anyway. I was under the impression that both M193 and M855 will penetrate soft body armor up thru level 3. I'm also under the impression that the earlier M855 rounds (which are the only ones for sale to civilians) is barrel twist sensitive and barrel length sensitive, the bullet could yaw in flight and not penetrate on impact anyway.
1) Tyrants want you to believe that the 2nd is about duck hunting (sporting purposes). 2) They'd also like you to believe that the BATFE/government "grants" rights, and that you need their permission for everything. An autograph auction house, Alexander Autographs, is auctioning a note sent by Barack Obama on White House stationary saying he supports the Second Amendment. The note was in response to a letter sent to him by a gentleman who noted how much money is raised for wildlife conservation by the sale of firearms and ammunition. The letter is included with this autographed note. You can read the full letter on the Alexander Autographs auction page above.
2) They'd also like you to believe that the BATFE/government "grants" rights, and that you need their permission for everything. I understand your point about getting the "Camels nose under the tent" but I also agree with some people just don't need access to certain things. (Even though this isn't one of them). For instance true armor piercing ammo cannot be bought by the populace, why? Is this because they don't want some loony getting his hands on some and attacking the local police station or military base? Or is it because they don't want you to be able to defend yourself when the tyrants decide it's time to come get your ass? Which is it????????
Which 'things' qualify for unconstitutional prohibitions, in your view? Authoritarians use both as excuses, but their real reason is to ultimately control the sorces of ammunition. Isn't that obvious?
I disagree. People that will support this idiotic idea of banning said ammo come from multiple agendas. A) Some are pure sheep. Convinced that the populace doesn't need to arm themselves for any reason. B) Some follow party lines and support anything anti gun. C) Some vision a future of socislism and total government control of money... and they fear an armed opposition. D) Some, do realize they will never defeat the 2nd amendment and have a future vision of controlling guns by controlling ammo (as you said) The sad fact is, there are more agendas against an armed populace than for. They tend to stick together. WE DON'T It's far from a mass, ammo controlling conspiracy. In fact, the politicians that will vote for this bill will do so because of A, B and C... more so than D. The best chance of beating your enemy... is knowing who they are.
Authoritarians use both as excuses, but their real reason is to ultimately control the sources of ammunition. Isn't that obvious? Well, you sure took a long way around to agree, so OK... And I really don't understand why you, gatlin, misterwhite, etc, disagree so much and so often.---- You all claim to be conservatives, so there's something very wrong. Dare I suggest you guys have a strange definition of conservatism? You've helped me be quite aware of who my enemies are.. Thanks for your candour.
Name me one (D) platform party ideal that I agree with or support.
And I really don't understand why you, gatlin, misterwhite, etc, disagree so much and so often.---- You all claim to be conservatives, so there's something very wrong. Dare I suggest you guys have a strange definition of conservatism? I'd agree that you're not a democrat. -- But you and the rest are more authoritarian than conservative, imho.
Well I'm not a anarchist.
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
'd agree that you're not a democrat. -- But you and the rest are more authoritarian than conservative, imho. Well, the fact that you needed to tell me that makes me laugh.. :) Thanks.
What the HELL are you doing with 50,000 primers if you are not an anarchist?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#14. To: CZ82, not about duck hunting, sporting purposes, *Bang List* (#10)
BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories
I'm not real sure what they intend to accomplish with this anyway. The Second Amendment Isn't About Duck Hunting
["rights of sportmen"]
More on the auction and on Obama's stance on gun rights is in a story from U.S. News and World Report's Washington Whispers column entitled Obama Backs Gun Rights.
#16. To: hondo68 (#14)
1) Tyrants want you to believe that the 2nd is about duck hunting (sporting purposes).
#18. To: CZ82 (#16)
I also agree with some people just don't need access to certain things. (Even though this isn't one of them).
For instance true armor piercing ammo cannot be bought by the populace, why? Is this because they don't want some loony getting his hands on some and attacking the local police station or military base? Or is it because they don't want you to be able to defend yourself when the tyrants decide it's time to come get your ass? --- Which is it????????
#19. To: tpaine (#18)
Authoritarians use both as excuses, but their real reason is to ultimately control the sorces of ammunition. Isn't that obvious?
#20. To: GrandIsland, gatlin, misterwhite, Y'ALL II (#19)
I disagree. -- People that will support this idiotic idea of banning said ammo come from multiple agendas. ----- A) Some are pure sheep. Convinced that the populace doesn't need to arm themselves for any reason. --- B) Some follow party lines and support anything anti gun. --- C) Some vision a future of socislism and total government control of money... and they fear an armed opposition. --- D) Some, do realize they will never defeat the 2nd amendment and have a future vision of controlling guns by controlling ammo (as you said)
The sad fact is, there are more agendas against an armed populace than for. They tend to stick together. WE DON'T
It's far from a mass, ammo controlling conspiracy. In fact, the politicians that will vote for this bill will do so because of A, B and C... more so than D. --- The best chance of beating your enemy... is knowing who they are.
#23. To: tpaine (#20)
And I really don't understand why you, gatlin, misterwhite, etc, disagree so much and so often.---- You all claim to be conservatives, so there's something very wrong. Dare I suggest you guys have a strange definition of conservatism?
#24. To: GrandIsland (#23)
Name me one (D) platform party ideal that I agree with or support.
#25. To: tpaine (#24)
I'd agree that you're not a democrat. -- But you and the rest are more authoritarian than conservative, imho.
Replies to Comment # 25. Well I'm not a anarchist.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#25)
Well I'm not a anarchist.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]