The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 7, 2012, 09:51 PM   #1
AKsRul.e
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 234
BATF wants to make more ammo types ILLEGAL

From the NRA..........

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...il-dec-31.aspx

.
Specifically they want to expand the definition of
"armor piercing" ammo to include MANY factory loads
currently sold for both rifles and handguns.

.
AKsRul.e is offline  
Old December 7, 2012, 10:09 PM   #2
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 764
The EPA does not want us to use Lead, now the BATF does not want us to use anything other than lead...not surpised.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old December 7, 2012, 10:12 PM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,508
Actually, that's not the case at all. Here's the quote directly from the ATF's site:

Quote:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
You can read the whole thing here.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 12:03 AM   #4
AKsRul.e
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 234
You are naive beyond belief.

I quote from the NRA release.........

"Last week, BATFE met separately with gun control activist groups, firearm industry groups, and groups representing hunters and other gun owners. The latter meeting included the NRA; Safari Club International; representatives of state wildlife agencies; and firearm and ammunition importers.

BATFE has expressed two opinions about the law and exemption that warrant particular scrutiny.

First, BATFE suggested that it believes that the "armor piercing ammunition" law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers. NRA reminded BATFE that the law was intended to protect law enforcement officers against the potential threat posed a very narrowly-defined category of projectiles: those, such as KTW and Arcane, which by virtue of their hard metal construction were designed and intended to be used by law enforcement officers to shoot through hard objects, such as automobile glass and doors, when fired at the velocities typical of handgun-caliber ammunition fired from handguns. Neither before nor since the law's enactment, has an officer been killed due to such a bullet penetrating soft body armor.

NRA further pointed out that the legislative history of the law clearly shows that members of Congress, including the sponsor of the law in the House, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a decorated former NYPD police officer, expressly did not want the law to restrict rifle-caliber bullets that happen to also be useable in handguns chambered to use rifle cartridges.

Second, BATFE says it considers projectiles to not be exempt under the "sporting purposes" test if they "pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement." BATFE also expressed concern that since the law was adopted, various new rifle-caliber handguns have been invented. On that point, NRA made clear that the sporting purposes exemption is straightforward: it applies to all projectiles that are "primarily intended for sporting purposes"--nothing more, and nothing less. Under the law, a projectile would be exempt if it is primarily intended for sporting purposes, even if it is secondarily intended for self-defense or some other legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the law does not condition its restrictive language or its "sporting purposes" exemption on the design of a particular handgun; the law is concerned only with specific projectiles that can be used in handguns. NRA cautioned the BATFE against interpreting the law in a manner more restrictive than Congress intended."


.
AKsRul.e is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 01:03 AM   #5
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
How can the ATF create more restrictions without the approval of congress, or is it more of that BS where "congress delegated its powers" like with Bernanke and the Federal Reserve.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 07:44 AM   #6
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
In this case the BATFE is taking comments on the "sporting purposes" exemption of "armor piercing" ammunition that can be used in handguns. That law was passed many years ago after the big hulabaloo over KTW "cop killer" bullets. The headline says it all:

BATFE Taking Comments on "Sporting Purposes" Exemption to "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Law Until Dec. 31

i wish folks would read stuff before going off the deep end.
thallub is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 12:02 PM   #7
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,933
So let me make sure I understand this, the ATF is taking comments about exempting certain ammunition from the armor-piercing ammo ban. This means that the ATF is considering making certain ammo which was previously illegal once again legal. Have I got it straight?
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 12:55 PM   #8
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
The other way around, I think.. they're taking comments on the exemption, meaning they're trying to un-apply the exemption to some rifle rounds that can be used in pistols that use rifle chamberings..
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 02:01 PM   #9
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 755
If they cannot make stronger body armor at the cost they like how is that the problem of gun owners & the industry? Do we have to be limited to the rounds they say now so that they can have another edge on the rest of us? Not to mention they can have fully auto, gas,grenades and such the rest of us cannot. No surprise to me police states have always outlawed everything they believe is a threat to their controll. China, Korea, Germany, U.k, well all the rest of the world really.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 03:41 PM   #10
AKsRul.e
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 234
It appears that many of you are unaware that the BATF can
hold hearings and have comment periods before changing their "rulings" on various regulations which are already law.

This is how they DEFINE what weapons and ammo are allowed under the various federal laws.

Once they make a "ruling" it carries the force of law UNLESS
the NRA or someone else sues them in court and wins.

I will give you an example......

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...uling-94-2.pdf

The BATF ruled that the "streetsweeper" shotgun , a manually operated shotgun with an 18 inch barrel could no longer be sold as a shotgun.

They declared it a Destructive Device and reclassified it as an NFA weapon BECAUSE it didn't meet the definition of
"sporting purposes"

.
AKsRul.e is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 04:03 PM   #11
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 755
in other words, part of a gov. that can do whatever they want
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 05:44 PM   #12
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
The first time the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA was applied to a long gun was in 1984 when a shotgun was banned from import. Im 1986 another shotgun was banned by a BATF letter to the importer. In 1989 over 40 semi-auto rifles were banned from import under the "sporting purposes " clause. After the AWB went into effect more guns were banned from import under the "sporting pruposes" clause of the GCA 1968. No hearings were held and no comments were taken prior to any of the above actions.
thallub is offline  
Old December 8, 2012, 07:42 PM   #13
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,915
Quote:
You are naive beyond belief.

I quote from the NRA release.........
Under-handed insults won't get you very far around here.

And, going from calling some one naive, to using the NRA as your source is ...questionable... at best.

Even as a life member, I take everything form the NRA with a grain of salt, and consider about 50% of it to qualify as disinformation or political BS. The NRA plays politics and omits vital information (even with its members) more than any other political organization I follow.



The BATFE website states that the subject is open for comments. That's all that's important.

The NRA's involvement is ...dubious. Half the time, the ATF only gets the NRA involved because they know that the NRA will compromise and cave on nearly everything, where GOA, IFOA, GOAL, NAGR, and similar groups will not consider any compromise.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 08:24 AM   #14
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,444
Quote:
in other words, part of a gov. that can do whatever they want
The lettered agencies have a long history of using the "better to ask forgivness than permission" method of doing things.
Hal is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 02:15 PM   #15
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,792
Be polite all . Say someone is mistaken as compared to the personality attribution.

Thank you.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 02:55 PM   #16
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
We need to read the following very, very carefully (quoted from the BATF website - my highlighting):

Quote:
ATF has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as "armor piercing ammunition".

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as "armor piercing ammunition" under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In this regard, ATF is seeking public comments on specific projectiles or projectile cores which may be used in a handgun and which are constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten, alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium, and whether these projectiles or projectile cores pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement, or are, "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" and therefore may be exempted from classification as "armor piercing ammunition."

All interested persons may submit comments to APAComments@atf.gov by December 31, 2012. Comments not received by or before December 31, 2012 will not be considered. All comments must include your name and mailing address. Comments are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Compare the above with the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i & ii):

Quote:
(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.
The part I bolded, in the above quote, is not found in the actual statute (also quoted), at issue. The BATF simply does not have the authority to modify the statute to read it as the BATF having some authority to treat projectiles as a threat to public safety or law enforcement. It is however, what the lower courts have been successfully using to negate our rights in the many gun cases. While not outright hostile to projectiles, I see this as a (so far) court sanctioned power-grab.

We only have until Dec. 31st to respond to this action. As Glenn reminds us, we need to be polite and respectful. Yet we also need to be firm in our responses.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 07:42 PM   #17
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
The BATFE website states that the subject is open for comments. That's all that's important.
It's not really important. They were open for comments before they mandated the reporting requirement for semi-auto rifles in border states. That doesn't mean they took any of them into consideration.

I'm not saying not to comment. But what's the use? Does anyone really think an ATF run by Obama is going to work with us, rather than against us?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 09:52 PM   #18
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 547
And by the definitions of "Armor Piercing Ammo" we have to be careful with the 410's like the Judge line...... that's why the Duplex slugs for the 410 suddenly became extinct in this country. And by the same token, Heavy Shot or certain other nontoxic options could suddenly become verboten.
SHR970 is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 11:42 PM   #19
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
As a federal pogue, I'm here to say, comments from individual citizens are meaningless here. I nonetheless intend to file mine, with all the eloquence I can muster. But these rules will pass easily, unless some heavy weight is brought to bear against them. God have mercy upon the men responsible for this entire "sporting purposes" misdirection, root and branch. The mendacity behind it raises a stench of corruption to the heavens.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:30 AM   #20
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 219
Had to look up pogue. In any event, reading the statute suggests that solid copper handgun ammunition could be classified as "armor piercing," hence the request to exempt them from the regulation. Which would explain why there have been requests received (undoubtedly from the industry) to assure no legal problems down the road. This, to me any way, is exactly the opposite of what the NRA is saying...why is that?
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 09:35 AM   #21
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Had to look up pogue. In any event, reading the statute suggests that solid copper handgun ammunition could be classified as "armor piercing,"
The statute reads "beryllium copper". There is a typo or deliberate use of a comma between "beryllium" and "copper" in the BATFE announcement. The use of 100 percent pure copper in a handgun caliber bullet is legal. Several bullet makers use pure copper in their handgun caliber bullets: Barnes, for one. i often use the excellent Barnes 225 grain .430 handgun bullet in my muzzleloader when hunting hogs.

A few months Elite Ammunition got into trouble for making handgun caliber bullets from an alloy of copper and zinc=brass. Elite Ammo touted the capabilities of their 5.7 ammo:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_48/34...ES_STATUS.html

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/120...mo.html&page=2

This video was made by Elite Ammuntion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxBFtilO_C4

Last edited by thallub; December 11, 2012 at 01:52 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:41 PM   #22
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,915
Don't forget about the open comment period for this.

We don't want anyone taking the chance to back-door us, while the potential AWB is in the spotlight.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:00 PM   #23
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
Don't be shocked. The BATF is always the shock troops of the President in power. If the President is pro-gun the BATF if pro-gun. If the president is anti-gun the BATF is anti-gun. The BATF is is the one federal agency that is totally political.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:08 PM   #24
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Since today was the last date for comments, does anyone know what date they are expected to make a decision?
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14051 seconds with 9 queries