The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 15, 2015, 07:23 PM   #26
Buzzard Bait
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 502
interpret the law to saw what ever they want it to

It's not a matter of if it will pass or not, this is interpreting current enforce law and saying we interpret it to say this or that, so no one gets to vote it doesn't have to pass anything.
bb

Last edited by Buzzard Bait; February 15, 2015 at 09:58 PM.
Buzzard Bait is offline  
Old February 15, 2015, 09:47 PM   #27
ihctractor
Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 78
This is ATFs response to manufactures selling SBRs without registrations by calling them "pistols" and saying that stock thingy is a "brace". Did they really think they were fooling anybody. Apparently the ATF wasn't.
ihctractor is offline  
Old February 15, 2015, 10:01 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Ban ammo (in ever increasing catagories) DONT for goodness sake do something like oh, I don't know, MAKE BETTER VESTS????

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 16, 2015, 10:36 AM   #29
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
The latest Obama/Republican battle, not funding the not needed Homeland Security stupid invention.

Why not add BATF to that thought pattern (Ruby Ridge/ The Branch Divider?sps compound burned up!!) De-fund, close down.

Let us go back to the Local/State Police. And the FBI. Save billions.

Every big City has a bomb squad. And if you do not have one, cordon off, till you borrow one.
Brit is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 10:59 AM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Congratulations Mississippi shooters! Thanks to this regulatory change, you could be criminals as soon as March of this year.

Quote:
Universal Citation: MS Code § 97-37-31 (2013)
It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, corporation or manufacturing establishment, not duly authorized under federal law, to make, manufacture, sell or possess any instrument or device which, if used on firearms of any kind, will arrest or muffle the report of said firearm when shot or fired or armor piercing ammunition as defined in federal law. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than thirty (30) days, or both. All such instruments or devices shall be registered with the Department of Public Safety and any law enforcement agency in possession of such instruments or devices shall submit an annual inventory of such instruments and devices to the Department of Public Safety. The Commissioner of Public Safety shall document the information required by this section.
You'd best get to shooting that M855 you've saved up. Any other states affected besides IL and MS?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 04:42 PM   #31
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
I hunt hogs with it on occasion. That's a sporting use right?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 07:14 PM   #32
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
If I saw the barrel off of my slug gun then it's an nfa item. Then I saw the buttock off of it too, does this make it a "handgun"? Are the 12games slugs then a "threat to public safety"? These ar pistols are not pistols at all IMO they're a joke. A pistol with a long buffer tube hanging out the back of it. A toy only a mall ninja would love.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 07:47 PM   #33
livingintx
Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2015
Posts: 33
The ATF's entire argument is centered around firing M855 from a handgun, which is where AR pistols come into play. They either don't know about the following study results, don't believe it, or don't care.

"Velocity drops rapidly as the barrel length decreases, especially below 10 inches where the velocity drops below 2,500 fps. M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093

I'm wondering if anyone has tested it's "armor piercing" capabilities out of 10" or shorter barrels. If M855 isn't capable of piercing armor out of such short barrels then their entire argument could be thrown out.
livingintx is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 09:27 PM   #34
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 462
Quote:
They either don't know about the following study results, don't believe it, or don't care.

"Velocity drops rapidly as the barrel length decreases, especially below 10 inches where the velocity drops below 2,500 fps. M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093

I'm wondering if anyone has tested it's "armor piercing" capabilities out of 10" or shorter barrels. If M855 isn't capable of piercing armor out of such short barrels then their entire argument could be thrown out.
NONE of this makes any difference.

The only question is whether the M855 projectile meets the DEFINITION of an armor piercing projectile under the law. That definition uses the construction of the projectile NOT the performance.

If you constructed a magic .223 projectile out of lead that would blow through 6 inches of steel, it would not be an armor piercing projectile under the law.
musher is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 09:38 PM   #35
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
If you have time to read this forum and complain; then you have time to take action.


How to comment – 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: [email protected]
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.

Also, contact your congressional reps to make them pressure the BATFE to stop it's over reaching interpretation of the laws.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 09:47 PM   #36
skizzums
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
i have a 300blk pistol and I can buy steel tipped bullets.... or is that just next on the list?
https://www.upammosupply.com/node/325
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed
skizzums is offline  
Old February 16, 2015, 10:14 PM   #37
livingintx
Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2015
Posts: 33
"NONE of this makes any difference."

Their position is based on:

"To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute" from -
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...g_purposes.pdf

They seem to be using handguns that can chamber M855 ammo. If a it's not capable causing a fatal wound channel from pistol-length barrels then it's possible that it may not be able to penetrate the armor they are concerned with. So the next question becomes "has anyone tested this?".
livingintx is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 01:09 AM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."
ah, Excuse me. but which of you guys swallows this line?

Quote:
If a it's not capable causing a fatal wound channel from pistol-length barrels then it's possible that it may not be able to penetrate the armor they are concerned with. So the next question becomes "has anyone tested this?".
At least this one starts with "If". From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter what they penetrate, or don't. Period. All that matters is if they are built in the manner described in law, or not.

From a purely practical point of view, can anyone explain to me HOW, the first quote can be true, other than throwing the bullet by hand? If that's what they mean then ok, I can buy that.

But if you fire the thing from a gun, its going to be lethal. 2,500fps is some kind of magic number? or is it just a magic number for that special bullet?

Or are we playing the semantic game "when impacting a target" means a paper target, and so, obviously no wound channel?

Ok, I finally found the reference in the link, and this is what was actually said,

Quote:
To generate a lethal wound channel, the M855 projectile must have a velocity of at least 2,500 ft/sec on impact with the target. Below that critical velocity, the M855 bullet simply drills a 1/4 inch hole in the target, which too frequently is not lethal unless it passes through a vital structure.
NOT REMOTELY what was given as a quote first, is it?

Quote:
M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."
. I see just a bit of difference.

Oh, and there's an error in the first part of the linked article. They say the 62gr bullet was the result of going to shorter barrels. It wasn't. It predated the shorter than 20" AR guns by a considerable amount.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 17, 2015, 09:09 AM   #39
livingintx
Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2015
Posts: 33
I'm not posting that to get into a legal debate or tit-for-tat with you. My reason for posting the article and quotes from it was to hopefully help give gun owners something to help fight off these infringements on our rights. I guess someone has to be the expert on everything and I'm always willing to concede that it isn't me. I don't waste my time on closed minds so this will be my last comment on this particular thread.
livingintx is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 09:10 AM   #40
jrinne0430
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 298
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use? I used [email protected] and it came back as undeliverable almost 12hrs after sending it.

Last edited by jrinne0430; February 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM.
jrinne0430 is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 09:37 AM   #41
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Poke the bear enough and what happens?
So is the problem that some people poke the bear, or that there is a bear that is allowed to live here among us? We should just speak in low voices and not make any sudden movements ..... in the hope that it will eat us last?
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 10:00 AM   #42
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
Studies about velocity, the capacity to pierce armor, etc., are good fodder for the legislative fight, but this isn't a legislative fight. Congress said, "ammunition with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing. Armor piercing ammo is banned." IIUC, ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 11:37 AM   #43
jrinne0430
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 298
Anyone else receiving undeliverable or delayed email response to the [email protected] address? I sent my response at 1340 yesterday and received "unable to deliver this message after 1 day" response 0130 this morning.
jrinne0430 is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 02:04 PM   #44
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Studies about velocity, the capacity to pierce armor, etc., are good fodder for the legislative fight, but this isn't a legislative fight. Congress said, "ammunition with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing. Armor piercing ammo is banned." IIUC, ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
Spot on again, Spats!

How is it that people don't get this?

The fine points of what the m855 will do or not due, barrel length, velocity, etc, are all good technical stuff. None of which applies to the ATF's decision at all. Discussing them here, now, is just a ..distraction.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 17, 2015, 02:30 PM   #45
Mosin-Marauder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj

There is a petition that has amassed a large amount of signatures lately. I signed it, please take the time to do so yourself.
__________________
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
Mosin-Marauder is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 03:44 PM   #46
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
I signed the petition about 10 minutes ago, but I have still not received the email to verify my signature. Is the common with that Whitehouse site?

$edit: Finally got the verification email. Took about a half an hour.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum

Last edited by JimPage; February 17, 2015 at 04:35 PM.
JimPage is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 03:48 PM   #47
Mosin-Marauder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
Took 2 or 3 min. for my email to come through. Check spam maybe?
__________________
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
Mosin-Marauder is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 03:54 PM   #48
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 462
Quote:
ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
Exactly.

This appears to me to be a carefully inexact reading of the statute.

In the linked ATF document explaining their thinking, we see the discussion move from a legal definition of armor piercing (AP) as
Quote:
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, st
eel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium;
to a statement that AP includes

Quote:
any ammunition containing the specified metal content “which may be used in a handgun.”
"containing" and "constructed entirely" are not the same thing.

It appears that ATF is adopting a definition of "core" to include any part of the interior of a bullet, no matter how small. Presumably under this definition, a bullet containing a thin needle of steel (or one of the other listed materials) in the middle of a traditional lead core would likewise be classed as AP. In short, any core constructed of a composite of listed and unlisted materials would meet their suggested definition (unless, perhaps it was a homogenous alloy).

ATF's proposed reading of the definition of core renders the phrase constructed "entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances)" in the statute above meaningless. In the tradition of not reading statutes so as to have no effect, this reading must be incorrect.

Nor is it necessary to interpret the language in the way that ATF suggests in order to reach a meaningful reading of the statute. Had congress intended to ban composite core bullets they could have chosen language along the lines of "constructed using" rather than "constructed entirely". But they did not, suggesting the ATF's proposed reading is not in line with the original intent of Congress.
musher is offline  
Old February 17, 2015, 08:22 PM   #49
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use? I used [email protected] and it came back as undeliverable almost 12hrs after sending it.
Quote:
Anyone else receiving undeliverable or delayed email response to the [email protected] address? I sent my response at 1340 yesterday and received "unable to deliver this message after 1 day" response 0130 this morning.
It seems that it worked for me. I sent my Email at around 1700 yesterday and have not received any "undelivered" notice.
I also just mailed letter to my reps and signed the online white house petition posted my Mosin-Marauder
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old February 18, 2015, 10:32 PM   #50
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
OK, I have boiled down the key points that ATF is relying on in their memo. These are assertions by ATF that must be attacked. If we remove these keystones, ATF's rationale falls apart:

1. M855 is armor-piercing as defined under (i) of the statute (already discussed here; but relies primarily on the "two core" interpretation)
2. Primarily intended must focus on the “likely use” of that item in the general community, not the subjective intent of the designer or user (this is in direct contradiction to the stance ATF takes on the SIG brace which says the intent of the user changes the design intent of the weapon)
3. When the only readily available handgun for a projectile is objectively sporting, then it can be reasonably inferred the primary intent is also sporting.
4. It is not possible to conclude that revolvers, semi-auto handguns or two-round derringers are primarily intended for use in sporting purposes (surely we can come up with many good arguments against this)
5. ATF has recognized that SS109 is suitable for target shooting (a sport the ATF also recognizes as a “suitable sporting purposes”) in 1986. (Don't want to attack this; but draw attention to the fact)
6. AR handguns and semi-auto handguns accepting SS109 were not commercially available in 1986; but are now available (Gwinn Armpistol predated SS109 by almost 20 years – any other examples of pre-1986 semi-auto .223 handguns?)
7. Withdrawing the exemption on SS109 will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition (under Federal law only, will place individuals under criminal possession under state law that relies on Federal definition – See MS Penal Code)

How about some input from TFL members on how we can tear down the blocks ATF is using to build their argument?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08460 seconds with 8 queries