The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 2, 2018, 01:48 AM   #51
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 161
Quote:
You can have 100% pro-gun people working for ATF and one stroke of the pen from the Attorney General kills that idea doesn't it?
Sure, which is why I have talked about having pro-gun people throughout the government period.

Quote:
Well, no you didn't and no, it doesn't.
First, you didn't read the link that explains ATF's reasoning behind their proposed ban on M855.

Second, you didn't read or didn't understand the first paragraph of the definition: "...(B) The term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ means—(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun..."

What you are missing is that M855 has a steel "projectile core".....and that's why it met the definition of armor piercing in 1986. Note that in 1986 ATF specifically exempted M855 and in 1992 .30-06 M2AP because of their sporting use and the fact that there were few if any handguns using that ammunition.
M855 uses a lead core, so it still fails under the definition.
LogicMan is offline  
Old January 2, 2018, 12:50 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,636
We've drifted more than a bit from the OP. I think the question has been answered, to sum up, "Why is there no push to repeal the "Sporting Purpose" language in the law?"

#1) it is not important enough to the right people (at this time), nor is it a big concern of the public in general.

#2) really tough, in today political climate to build public support for "relaxing" the restrictions on "military arms" which are "weapons of mass death flooding our streets", etc. After all, in the eye of the under informed public, the gun and ammo MUST be one or the other. It's either something "suitable for sporting use" or it's not, and if its not, then it MUST be something the military uses, and therefore, something we don't want in private hands, because of how dangerous that is to public safety.

ITs not correct, but that is the way a lot of people think today (they've been trained to think that way for a few decades now), and those people have money and votes.

Now, as to the M855 ammo "debate", the attempted ban is a good example of bureaucratic over-reach, and an arbitrary decision. Something that was once allowed, was to be banned, because of a change in the interpretation of
existing rules and definitions.

Quote:
What you are missing is that M855 has a steel "projectile core".....and that's why it met the definition of armor piercing in 1986.
Quote:
M855 uses a lead core, so it still fails under the definition.
You're both right.

Described for many years as having a "steel penetrator insert" M855 ammo was designed with an enhanced AP capability (compared to regular ball ammo), the steel penetrator was intended to defeat the body armor seen worn by Warsaw Pact forces (at that time).

SO, it has BOTH steel and lead in the core. Originally using reasonable judgement, it was not classified as AP, because the core was mostly lead, and it wasn't pistol ammunition.

Later, some bright fellow at the ATF decides that since there are now some "handguns" made for it, and the steel insert is enough to make it AP, so it is now "armor piercing handgun ammunition"

When this proposed change was put up for public comment, the debate began.

Quote:
Note that in 1986 ATF specifically exempted M855 and in 1992 .30-06 M2AP because of their sporting use and the fact that there were few if any handguns using that ammunition.
Exempted, because at the time, M855 did not meet the requirement for AP rifle ammo, and was not considered "pistol" ammo. I don't think "sporting use" entered into the decision, at all.

I am unaware of any change exempting .30-06 AP ammunition. It is the very definition of AP, has no "sporting use", its even called Armor Piercing and always has been! As far as I know, you can't buy any, sell any, trade any or even legally give it away, other than to a licensed dealer.

As loaded ammunition. AP bullets (pulled from loaded ammo) are not restricted, (at the Fed level) and you can buy as many as your state allows.

Other than as an example of over reach by changing their interpretation of already establish definitions, why are we even talking about this??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 2, 2018, 03:15 PM   #53
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,179
Quote:
44 AMP .....I am unaware of any change exempting .30-06 AP ammunition. It is the very definition of AP, has no "sporting use", its even called Armor Piercing and always has been! As far as I know, you can't buy any, sell any, trade any or even legally give it away, other than to a licensed dealer.
Sigh.
You keep calling it an arbitrary decision, yet refuse to read the ATF's explanation of why they considered M855 armor piercing and why it (and .30-06 M2AP) were exempted in 1986 and 1992 respectively.

I posted the link, but I can't make you read it.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Reply

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 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05301 seconds with 10 queries