Sporting purposes exemption for ammo
The NRA says that that the ATF is taking comments. These comment periods tend to precede some sort of new reg.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 7th, 2012 at 1:31 am
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.
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.”
And thus we see the new effort to control long guns. ALL rifle rounds, except maybe .22, will penetrate soft armor.
Disband the ATF now.
December 7th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Step 1: Ban lead ammunition for environmental reasons, citing the existence of non-lead alternatives.
Step 2: Ban non-lead ammunition for OFFICER SAFETY reasons.
December 7th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Looks like the BATFE is getting ready for a new push against rifle ammo, by using TC Encore pistols as an excuse.
December 7th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Which Eurocentric Idiot is in Charge of the BATFEIEIO today? Sounds like the first step towards doing Caliber Restriction, where on is not allowed to use “Military” Rounds. First the Bullets, then the Cartridge. After all, one can’t fire an M4 w/o 5.56 Nato, right?
Yeah, I know, .223 Remington. But they’ll probably cover the Civilian Versions also.
December 7th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I figured that they were going after the SS109 round but I have to agree with Cargosquid. Why go halfway when you can get rid of rifles all together. After all, “we’re not banning rifles just the ammunition that’s dangerous to officer safety.”
December 9th, 2012 at 2:41 am
They can’t get shot in the face where there isn’t armor? Is gun, is dangerous!
Just like so many other things in life.
Cry the beloved country. Who said it can’t happen here?
Which Supreme Court case allowed executive branch agencies to take the role of the legislature?
December 9th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Let’s ask the One Big Question, as Joe Huffman taught me to do.
Where in the Name of Beelzebub does the Second Amendment refer to “sporting purpose”? Answer: it doesn’t, it refers to MILITIA purpose, which common sense tells us is the same as MILITARY purpose. Any military ammoor even military-STYLE ammo ban would therefore be diametrically opposed to the PURPOSE of the 2A, and therefore a Civil Rights violation.
Where’s the NRA-ILA on this One Big Question? Oh, silly me, the NRA never STARTS a 2A fight, they sometimes come in on the side of the 2A after the heavy blows have been traded, and they DO have the best Rolodex in town. Excuse me.
December 9th, 2012 at 11:04 am
BTW, the BATFE could make a decent case that ammo not designed for war or ammo banned by convention for war (most expanding ammo) does not fit the PURPOSE of the 2A. If they were taking THAT tactic, I might even have to admit that they had the Constitution on their side.
December 11th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
See, I was under the impression NRA (or someone in the bullet industry) actually asked for this. I suspect Barnes Bullets.
Not that BATFE did this on their own. And strangely, there seems to be no regulatory docket, federal register notice, proposed rulemaking, studies, or copies of the various requests seeking the exemption to the armor piercing handgun ammo definition.