|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2015, 12:28 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Post Heller, the sporting purposes clause is an inapt limitation on activity and items associated with the fundamental right to self-defense. And although there are no court cases yet about the militia purpose of the amendment, I believe when it is finally addressed it will make mincemeat of the idea that a sporting purposes limitation on second amendment activity is befitting of a fundamental right to self-defense, or of the ability of the government to raise an effective militia. Whether the government ever intends to or actually does raise a militia is irrelevant. It is the second amendment, not the government that secures that capability. While it's true that Heller found a right to self-defense separate from the militia purpose announced in the first clause, the court also said that despite the degree of disconnect created by implements of modern warfare, the court could not allow that separation to change their interpretation of the right. That right must be interpreted according to the common understanding at the time of ratification. Militia members at the time of founding were expected to bring those firearms which they commonly possessed at home, which by the way, were equal to the most lethal bearable arms on the planet. This is where the common use test would apply securing arms and by obvious implication, common ammunition. (This test cannot be applied in a vacuum however. To do so would be to eliminate any future developments wherein a new, bearable arm design would not yet be common.) Last edited by maestro pistolero; February 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM. |
|
February 26, 2015, 01:13 PM | #77 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
There's a thread about M855 in the General Discussion area, also. I don't like to double post, but I posted this in the other thread and I think it's applicable here, as well:
Just received an e-mail from the owner of Ares Armor citing a former BATFE agent, who provides a very insightful explanation of the impetus to ban the M855 ammo: http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArtic...5%20bancontent Quote:
He ends with what I picked up as soon as I read the definitions: Quote:
|
||
February 26, 2015, 01:21 PM | #78 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,835
|
"Sporting purposes" is, and always was a "red herring". It is also today, a textbook example of the creeping incrementalism allowed to a bureaucracy through a poorly worded law.
The "sporting purposes" concept was created as justification to restrict imports. NOT as any basis for what citizens could possess. It was a trade protection measure, and supported by our major gunmakers at the time. As long as the banned guns/ammo could be made in the US, there was no threat seen to our 2nd Amendment rights. At that time. Today, that "sporting purposes" test is being applied (and applied unfairly) not just to what can be imported, but also to what can be made and even owned (in some cases) in the US. And "sporting purposes" is defined in law. The definition is that the Sec Treas. has the authority to decide what sporting purposes are. And, other than a few individuals, Congress doesn't give a rat's posterior about what rules the BATFE makes up, or how they affect us. HOWEVER, they do care a lot about their authority. I think the way to fight the ATF reclassifying M855 ammo is not to argue about what it does, or doesn't do from a pistol, or even what it is made of. The argument that I think will be most effective in getting Congressional "help" is that the ATF is encroaching on Congressional authority. This isn't a game of reality, it is a game of political power, and pride. If we can get Congress to see that, in this case, it is a matter of the ATF imposing their opinion where it is actually Congress's role to decide, we stand a chance. Get some of them convinced that Congress should not have given the Sec Tres (or his delegates) the sole authority to make these decisions. Make it a battle between govt branches & agencies (which it is, and should be seen as such), and not about the physical aspects of the ammo. WE have leverage on Congress (not a lot, but some) through the election process. We don't have that against the Executive branch's minion agencies. We've seen, and continue to see how much public opinion matters, and to whom.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 26, 2015, 01:41 PM | #79 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I can only pray that those who live in states with more honest congresscritters will make the effort to bring this to their attention and gain their support. |
|
February 26, 2015, 01:45 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
|
I contacted both of my senators and both representatives for my area regarding this. Thankfully, all four are pro-2A.
__________________
Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman |
February 26, 2015, 02:49 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
February 26, 2015, 04:52 PM | #82 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
You only have ONE representative in the House. Your state has two senators, but each congressional district has only one representative, and you can only vote in one congressional district. (At least, in theory.) |
|
February 26, 2015, 05:12 PM | #83 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,835
|
You can express your opinion to ANY and ALL of our elected representatives if you want. And they all have a degree of responsibility to listen to you, as you are a US citizen. That's the theory.
If you aren't their citizen, they're not really going to care as much, and the agenda driven politicians don't even listen to their own citizens much, that's the way the world is.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 26, 2015, 05:28 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Does ANYbody on this board actually believe that ANYthing submitted by the
public against this move will stop ANYthing associated w/ this ammunition ban ? Really ? Just the beginning folks..... |
February 26, 2015, 05:40 PM | #85 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2008
Location: yonder
Posts: 359
|
We saw it on every gun related forum, including this one...
"""Obama's not going to take our guns or ammo away...only an idiot thinks that will happen...you're paranoid and delusional if you believe that""" tsk, tsk, tsk....looks like the "tin foil hat wearing ammo hoarders" were right all along. |
February 26, 2015, 05:43 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
|
I typed in my area code and got Virginia Foxx and Robert Pittenger for some reason. Oddly enough he is the representative to where I will be moving shortly. I figured contacting the other wouldn't hurt the cause. 2 is better than 1 and all that.
__________________
Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman |
February 26, 2015, 07:11 PM | #87 |
Member
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 28
|
They're trying to tighten the noose on freedoms of the people.
|
February 26, 2015, 11:08 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Posts: 737
|
Banning green tip is just the beginning.
5.45x39 will go through bullet-proof vests FN Fiveseven will go through bullet-proof vests 7.62x39 will go through bullet-proof vests 5.56 will go through 3a law enforcement body armor I think it's a good guess that other ammunition will be banned eventually. |
February 27, 2015, 08:30 AM | #89 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 27, 2015, 08:45 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Posts: 341
|
They should just come out and say, "If you like your guns, then you can keep your guns."
|
February 27, 2015, 09:25 AM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,238
|
The bottom line is this... The ammo retailers advertise things to have certain characteristics, whether or they've been designed as such or not...
In the case of green tip, I've seen numerous ads over the years labeling it as "penetrator" ammo Marketing has proven the legal downfall of many firearm related items
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
February 27, 2015, 09:30 AM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Sounds like we're darned if we do, and darned if we don't if you ask me.
|
February 27, 2015, 10:17 AM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Posts: 737
|
Quote:
As has been said before, green tip is just the beginning or "test bed" for future bannings. |
|
February 27, 2015, 11:38 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
I'm not sure if it will pass or not. From what I understand the bullets construction in its materials and design does not meet the criteria to be legally banned and a ban on it now would overturn thirty years of law and that's hard to do. The law we have bans ap pistol ammunition and the .223 was never designed as a pistol round but "pistols" if that's what you want to call them have been made for them. In my book that doesn't make it a pistol round. There are "pistols" that shoot .308 also and it is not a "pistol round" because of that. Almost any hunting round has the power to defeat body armor but bans on it have not been considered regardless of its materials made from. This has nothing to do with "armor piercing" because we all know m855 is not. It is about political disdain for ar15s only, and I see it as an underhanded thing that a desperate person would try.
|
February 28, 2015, 09:31 AM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
|
I cannot state this enough.
IF YOU HAVE TIME TO READ THIS FORUM AND TYPE A COMMENT, YOU HAVE TIME TO TAKE ACTION!!! If you have not done so already. Contact the BATFE, and you reps and senators. Sign the Whitehouse Petition. You may not think it will do any good. But doing nothing will DEFINATELY do no good. This is not simply an issue with SS109/M885 ammunition, this is an issue with unelected bureaucrats arbitrarily bending laws to make them fit into an agenda. It's a frighteningly reoccurring theme lately with the 7N6 ammo, Sig brace, and now the SS109. Who knows what will be next?
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor. |
February 28, 2015, 09:56 AM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Posts: 341
|
I do agree with those of you that suggest doing something to try to stop this. Yes, things are definitely out of kilter in Washington. But, not to be pessimistic, I wouldn't hold out hope.
Last November, America spoke loud and clear at the polling booth. That is our ultimate voice. Raise your hand if you see any positive changes on the horizon. |
February 28, 2015, 10:35 AM | #97 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2015
Posts: 1,768
|
I have respect for everyone and their particular view point,
Here is mine, I have a good friend, 4 tours in the sand box, Master Trooper with the Indiana State Police, and the post armor. He is a RABID firearms supporter! Thinks that anyone without a Felony or Mental Illness should be able to own full automatic without special regesteration... If that tells you anything. What he found out is... 1. In the 80s, the tungsten core bullets would slice through 'Soft' body armor like a hot knife through butter, Penetrate 'Trauma' plates like butter, Continue through the body and out the back side without slowing down much... Even when fired from handgun length barrels. The Tungsten core maker stopped making the cores, So manufacturers started using steel. 2. Congress/BATFE passed the 'Cop Killer' bullet ban, No 'Armor Piercing' "Hand Gun" ammo. No HAND GUN 'AP' AMMO, PERIOD. This included 'Duplex' rounds, steel cores (round balls, darts, pointed cores) in hand gun ammo. No restrictions on RIFLE ammo. 3. The BATFE has registered more than 3 MILLION AR style semi-auto 'Pistols', and that was just the last 10 years or so... AR Pistols had been around for a while, but in the last 10 years or so, they have been mass produced and retailed in VOLUME. 4. This puts the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm (NATO) rounds SQUARELY in the 'Hand Gun' category since the AR style pistols are being mass produced. This is NOT just a few guys building a 'Pistol' out of an AR anymore. No one with a brain can argue this point, over 3 MILLION in 10 years is a TREND, no question about a .223/5.56 handgun anymore. 5. While no Police/Federal employees have been killed (YET... At this time, today) These SS109/M855 rounds are showing up in AR style handguns, Have been used in shootouts, and are readily available. 6. One reason this is getting attention, And not widely publicized, The DRUG CARTELS in MEXICO are using these rounds in cross border shootings. Since most of the weapons/ammo in Mexico is coming from the US, it was inevitable. Border Patrol vehicles have been turned into swiss cheese by these rounds, and it's scaring the hell out of the Border Patrol and Homeland Security, Which is pushing this particular 'Ban'. 7. The Indiana State Police have found an increasing number of AR 'Pistols', both registered as pistols, and illegal 'Shorties' top ends on rifle lowers, More than 300 last year alone. In the south west district alone, more than 40 magazines of 'Green Tip' ammo have shown up in search/seizures in the last year. Much of this ammo is showing up in 'Hispanic' gang related raids. It seems to be real popular with the Hispanic bad guys for some reason... To be fair, most of the 'Hispanic Gang' members are NOT 'Mexican', Mostly from Central American countries, not Mexico. ------------------ PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT 'GREEN TIP' AMMO AND CRIMINALS... It's just a matter of time until we lose a good trooper to the 'Green Tip' that WILL PENETRATE the ISP body armor, In one side, out the other in on site testing last year at my local range... --------------- PERSONAL OPINION, I'm what some would call a 'Long Range' shooter, 300 to 600 yards regularly, I find the very idea of an AR 'Pistol' an absurd idea, Built by people that either just want to do it without asking *IF* THEY SHOULD do it, Or what the ramifications will be.... The .223/5.56 round is a long barrel RIFLE round, Always has been, always will be. And pumping it through a pistol length barrel is a waste of time and ammo, Along with creating problems for the legitimate rifle shooters. I don't find the 'Green Tip' accurate, so I don't use them. This won't make a difference in my reloading, or my factory ammo purchases. The AR 'Pistol' is a device for turning money into noise, and nothing more. It's a LOUSY Personal Defense Weapon, It's ILLEGAL when fired from the shoulder, It's muzzle velocity makes it VERY inaccurate, It's nothing more than a 'Show Off' device for kids of all ages that haven't grown up yet, or respect firearms... Probably shouldn't own firearms of any kind until they learn respect and proper usage... But like I clearly stated, that's personal opinion. Last edited by JeepHammer; February 28, 2015 at 10:42 AM. |
February 28, 2015, 12:22 PM | #98 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Are you perhaps thinking of short-barrel rifle versions of the AR? You need a $200 tax stamp for those, so they must be on a list or registry of some sort. |
|
February 28, 2015, 12:26 PM | #99 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For example, you live in Illinois. While possession of "green tip" ammo will not be illegal under federal law, it will be illegal under your state law. If you are a competitive target shooter who has purchased a bunch of M855 in order to practice cheaply and live in Illinois, you are going to be in violation of state law as soon as M855 is reclassified. You are now a criminal and officers are still in the exact same amount of danger as previously. You could even argue officers are in more danger; because while M855 will not penetrate Level III AR500 Plate Armor, regular old lead FMJ will penetrate Level III AR500 Plate Armor because of its higher velocity. So by forcing M855 off the market, you are basically pushing people into ammunition that has better penetration characteristics (though once again, any rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate soft body armor - that's why it is rifle caliber ammo). And you should be very involved and very concerned about this memo. 1) Did you notice the part where ATF argues that there is no "particular sporting purpose" for any type of multi-shot handgun? Have you considered the implications of allowing that statement to go unchallenged? 2) Are you OK with ATF banning one of the most popular sporting types of ammunition in the United States just because there is a single multi-shot handgun in the ordinary channels of commerce? In this memo, ATF is saying that even if 40 million shooters use that ammo every day for sporting purposes, they can (and will) ban it if a single multi-shot handgun chambered for that ammo enters the ordinary channels of commerce. THIS is how ATF proposes to interpret the words "primarily intended for sporting purpose" in the legislation. If you don't have a problem with either of those things, then I don't know what to tell you. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 28, 2015 at 05:56 PM. |
|||
February 28, 2015, 12:30 PM | #100 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
By the way, Rep. Bob Goodlatte's letter (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that oversees ATF and their budget) on this matter has gathered 172 co-signers in just two days. The Senate is also going to take up this issue; so keep up the pressure! Your communications are being heard.
172 co-signers means we are only 44 members short in the House of having a majority necessary to pass legislation clarifying this matter in the House - and since that is just after two days of effort, chances are good we can hit that number with proper encouragement from constituents. |
|
|