ATF proposes to reclassify M855/SS109 green tip as armor-piercing ammo

[Thompson9494]

Hopefully, Congress can pass this law exempting M855 and other cartridges. Yes, the President may (will) veto it, BUT we are not as bad off in Congress. We need 290 representatives to get a 2/3s, we have 245 Republicans (I'm sure we can scrape together 45 sympathetic Democrats from southern and mid western states who would prefer to keep their seats in 2016).

The Senate will be a bit more difficult. We have 54 Senators, we need 67 and I'm sure we scrape together AT LEAST 4 or 5 such as the Democrats in Montana and North Dakota and other. I'm slightly optimistic and it'll be a stretch if it does occur.

Even if this law passes and unfortunately, it likely will, the judiciary can always come in and declare it unconstitutional (we're pretty good there too).

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that and yes, I understand POTUS will probably veto it and that Congress will not be able to override his veto.

 

[dogtown tom]

ConstitutionCowboy .......Agencies like the ATF were created out of thin air(unconstitutional means)...

Created out of thin air by Congress?
Explain why you think ATF was created by "unconstitutional means".

The rule making power invented for these agencies and the lack of any effective means to hold these agencies in check by Congress....

Nonsense. Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992.

The brilliance in forking over those unpopular means to unelected officials is not even half of what was achieved by those dictatorial dictator wannabes. How they sold it to the elected officials and justified it to the People is the real brilliance. That's what happens when people who seek power instead of to serve are elected. You see, power doesn't corrupt. The corrupt seek power.

Nice rant, but they are in power because WE elect them.

So, don't believe any of the rhetoric(lies, damn lies, demagoguery, dissembling, and phony statistics) these disarmers are using. It has nothing to do with "the safety of law enforcement" and everything to do with turning us into impotent subjects of their utopian state. Let them know that you know what they are up to and will not stand for it.

Sorry, I think its less about a utopian state than it is some bureaucrat who noticed that M855 isn't a 100% lead core. It's been on their radar for years. Hence the proposed withdrawal of the exemption.

 

[AKElroy]

^^^^^This. It is to make it more expensive, and hence difficult for the average, legal citizen to use his/her firearms. Again, it is aimed at the legal gun owner. It is de facto gun control on the law abiding citizen, and yet another example of utter tyranny from this Administration.

Exactly. This is about market manipulation, an extension by the same folks that brought us "choke point"; Prices for ALL 5.56/.223 PLUS any others we feel might be at risk among the ranks of the evil brood (.308, 7.62x39, etc...) will no doubt go through the roof, supply will evaporate once again just as the market was beginning to normalize, any that gets delivered will get hoarded, and the cycle of the relentless pursuit of disruption of the shooting world will continue. I despise these freaking people. This is happening now, without the rule taking effect. Even if this gets defeated, damage done. Score one more for the enemy.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Created out of thin air by Congress?
Explain why you think ATF was created by "unconstitutional means".

Congress was never given power to legislate in any of the areas the ATF operates, and the "F" part is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Nonsense. Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992.:

The president can veto any bills Congress can conjure up to limit or even eliminate any of these agencies unless Congress can muster up enough votes to override his veto. There are more than enough Congress critters in league with the president to prevent an override.

Nice rant, but they are in power because WE elect them.:

Mostly by misdirection. They misrepresent themselves so they can misrepresent us when they get to Congress.

Sorry, I think its less about a utopian state than it is some bureaucrat who noticed that M855 isn't a 100% lead core. It's been on their radar for years. Hence the proposed withdrawal of the exemption.

The utopian state is merely what they are 'selling'.

The law doesn't specify that it has to be a 100% lead core. It specifies it can't be a solid core of those metals actually listed in the regs. They are not that dumb that they can't figure that out for themselves. They are bent. The ammo 'on their radar' does not have a solid core of any of those metals. It's about one more step - a progression - toward their goal. They call themselves 'progressives' and are living up to their name.

You need to look deeper into this path we've been diverted to beyond the attempts of the feral government to disarm us. Every area of our lives is coming under attack from what we eat, what we are taught, when and where we can pray, who we can't refuse to sell to, etc. etc. ...

They need to disarm us. The only thing that will stop them is the power of the arms we keep and bear. The trouble is, they won't figure that out until they try to come and get them.

Woody

 

[AKElroy]

Actually, I believe that Congress could vote to defund the ATF and this silliness pretty effectively strangling the ban and it's authors.

Personally, I'd like to see a federal bill mandating that adult non-prohibited members of the public could purchase M855 (or what ever the current duty round is at the time) directly from the federal arsenal. Lets say each citizen could order 1,200 rounds per year at the same cost as the government, no FET, plus shipping. Just to help maintain the well regulated militia. If there's a war on the government could opt to refuse orders, but if peace reigns the little people working at Lake City gotta eat, pay mortgages and send kids to college too.

Headline: "republican congress threatens to shut down our most important anti-terrorism agency in order to save cop-killer bullets"

Yeah, I see Boehner all over that.

 

[AKElroy]

Created out of thin air by Congress?
Explain why you think ATF was created by "unconstitutional means".





Nonsense. Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992.





Nice rant, but they are in power because WE elect them.





Sorry, I think its less about a utopian state than it is some bureaucrat who noticed that M855 isn't a 100% lead core. It's been on their radar for years. Hence the proposed withdrawal of the exemption.

Actually, they could have a bubblegum core and this administration would still seek ways to disrupt the shooting community. I've had a rough day, so my mood is being reflected in my snarky ness. Sorry for that, but we continue to think playing by the rules and within the system will work, when this administration continues to run over these democratic institutions both bureaucratically and via executive decree. The law we are debating specifically prohibits what they are doing , and yet they are doing it. Going to congress to get more paper drafted will simply yield more paper they will ignore, laugh at, drive a truck over, back up and run over again. Two more years...two more years...two more years....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Exactly. This is about market manipulation, an extension by the same folks that brought us "choke point"

Operation Chokepoint by the way, was just recently successfully defunded by Congress despite facing all of the same problems that attacking the M855 ban will face. This is definitely a fight that can be won at the legislative level.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Operation Chokepoint by the way, was just recently successfully defunded by Congress despite facing all of the same problems that attacking the M855 ban will face. This is definitely a fight that can be won at the legislative level.

The difference being, the lame stream media barely covered Operation Choke Point. Not the case with the M855/SS109 ban. The media has not only covered the proposed ban, but once again spew misinformation, buzz words and rhetoric designed to rile up the masses (on both sides). The media has been highly successful in getting this messed up message to the sheeple, who clamor to keep safe those who keep them safe. It's the Black Talon nonsense all wrapped up with a new ribbon.

We must ban Teflon coated heat seeking armor piercing explosive hollow point full metal jacket ammunition bullets fired from high caliber magazine clips that kill cops and kids because common sense and hashtag not-one-more. It's all hype and garbage. But most people will never realize it.

 

[F-111 John]

It's been on their radar for years. Hence the proposed withdrawal of the exemption.

Read the ATF letter again calling for comments: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi..._primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

They are not asking for comments on a proposed ban on M855, they are asking for comments on their proposed definition of "sporting purposes," and if their definition is adopted then they will automatically withdraw the exemptions for SS109 and M855 based on that newly adopted definition.

A subtle but very important difference. If anybody commercializes a .30-06 handgun, M2AP will automatically be banned. The ATF is attempting to put ammunition bans on autopilot.

From the ATF letter:

To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm “green tip” ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges.

[snip]

Under the proposed framework, the exemption for 30-06 M2AP cartridges would continue because ATF is not aware of any multi-shot handguns available in the ordinary channels of commerce that currently accept such ammunition.

 

[steve4102]

Hopefully, Congress can pass this law exempting M855 and other cartridges. Yes, the President may (will) veto it, BUT we are not as bad off in Congress. We need 290 representatives to get a 2/3s, we have 245 Republicans (I'm sure we can scrape together 45 sympathetic Democrats from southern and mid western states who would prefer to keep their seats in 2016).

The Senate will be a bit more difficult. We have 54 Senators, we need 67 and I'm sure we scrape together AT LEAST 4 or 5 such as the Democrats in Montana and North Dakota and other. I'm slightly optimistic and it'll be a stretch if it does occur.

Even if this law passes and unfortunately, it likely will, the judiciary can always come in and declare it unconstitutional (we're pretty good there too).

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that and yes, I understand POTUS will probably veto it and that Congress will not be able to override his veto.

The highlighted part is what you can be sure of.

 

[barnbwt]

"The ATF is attempting to put ammunition bans on autopilot."
Or rather, give themselves authority to unilaterally ban ammo whenever the opportunity presents itself. As we see now, it is rather a pain to ban bullets as the issue comes up; they don't want to even deal with an abnormal comment period.

How 'bout those H&K G3 pistols, fellas? Kiss heavy, non frangible 308 goodbye...

"Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992."
Ah, so there is precedent. Good.

TCB

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They are not asking for comments on a proposed ban on M855, they are asking for comments on their proposed definition of "sporting purposes," and if their definition is adopted then they will automatically withdraw the exemptions for SS109 and M855 based on that newly adopted definition.

This is an important point to understand. Because here is the test ATF proposes to use:

1) Can the round be fired from a multi-shot handgun or a single-shot derringer that is available in the "ordinary channels of commerce"?
2) Is it a .22 rimfire of less than 40gr weight?
3) Is it armor-piercing ammunition as the ATF interprets the statute (which in this case, they have interpreted it to mean that M855 is armor-piercing even though it doesn't even meet the statutory definition)?

If the answer to those three questions is yes, then it will be banned armor-piercing ammunition under the test ATF wants to use.

All those questions you have like"What is ordinary channels of commerce?" "What constitutes the core?" "How small does a single shot have to be before it is considered a derringer?" etc. ATF will be able to "interpret" any phrase not specifically defined by Congress or the courts in any "reasonable" manner and that interpretation can change 6 months or 6 years down the road.

It doesn't matter if there are 50 million people using the projectile in a way that ATF has already officially deemed sporting - once a multi-shot handgun becomes available that can use that projectile, it is now banned ammunition. That's the test ATF wants to use.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Nonsense. Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992.

Funding restrictions? In the last four years ATF has had only one budget cut. That would be in 2013 because of sequestration (across the board budget cuts for all agencies). Looks to me like they increase their budget every year. You're not making this stuff up are you?

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/12/13/atf.pdf

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don't be shy, folks. There is an end here and you all can see it as well as I can. Follow the means being employed. Look through that Overton Window. I'll show you exactly where we are being taken.

All the "good intentions" you hear from them like, "To protect law enforcement personnel," or, "It's for the children," mask a bad intention. Well, bad for us, good for them!

They will ultimately ban this ammo, and as has been pointed out, by changing the law by redefining it, will ban even more. This is a step they can't afford to lose. They have effectively banned machine guns, arms over 50 caliber, explosives, etc. by making them impossible to obtain without great expense, hoops to jump through, a 'convincing need', etc.

If this ban can't be defeated by our popular demand or through the legislative process, it'll take defiance and trials, and even if we have victories in that arena, I doubt it will be the end.

The Constitution is on our side - or rather we are on the side of the Constitution. Look where they are regarding the Constitution and see if I'm right or wrong.

Woody

 

[Swing]

Sensenbrenner has reintroduced his ATF abolishing bill over this case. It is hard to imagine it will see the light of day though.

 

[Warp]

Hopefully, Congress can pass this law exempting M855 and other cartridges. Yes, the President may (will) veto it, BUT we are not as bad off in Congress. We need 290 representatives to get a 2/3s, we have 245 Republicans (I'm sure we can scrape together 45 sympathetic Democrats from southern and mid western states who would prefer to keep their seats in 2016).

The Senate will be a bit more difficult. We have 54 Senators, we need 67 and I'm sure we scrape together AT LEAST 4 or 5 such as the Democrats in Montana and North Dakota and other. I'm slightly optimistic and it'll be a stretch if it does occur.

Even if this law passes and unfortunately, it likely will, the judiciary can always come in and declare it unconstitutional (we're pretty good there too).

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that and yes, I understand POTUS will probably veto it and that Congress will not be able to override his veto.

You are a fool if you believe that just because somebody has an R next to their name, they will automatically vote for something like this.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Funding restrictions? In the last four years ATF has had only one budget cut. That would be in 2013 because of sequestration (across the board budget cuts for all agencies). Looks to me like they increase their budget every year. You're not making this stuff up are you?

He isn't referring to the overall budget but the actual Congressional appropriations directing how the money is spent. If you Google you can find a Mother Jones article complaining about how the NRA has defanged ATF. As journalism goes, it is mediocre; but they do point out that (going on memory here) something like 65 lines of the ATF's 76 line budget are devoted to outlining what ATF CANNOT do with the money. That's the NRA and a GOP dominated House.

 

[dogtown tom]

ConstitutionCowboy Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
Created out of thin air by Congress?
Explain why you think ATF was created by "unconstitutional means".

Congress was never given power to legislate in any of the areas the ATF operates, and the "F" part is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Ever heard of the Commerce Clause?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
"(The Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..."


Like it or not, but the USSC has ruled several times on the constitutionality of such regulation.

CoalTrain49

Quote:
Nonsense. Congress can and does hold such agencies in check. Please note the funding restrictions that Congress has had on ATF since 1992.

Funding restrictions? In the last four years ATF has had only one budget cut. That would be in 2013 because of sequestration (across the board budget cuts for all agencies). Looks to me like they increase their budget every year.

You confuse "funding restrictions" with their agency budget.
Budgets for many Federal agencies contain restrictions on how the agency may spend their budget.

You're not making this stuff up are you?

Seriously?
You've been on this forum long enough to know that I don't pull stuff outta my backside and claim it as fact.

Here.......read what ATF has to say:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#firearms-relief

Q: How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities?

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]

 

[FIGHT NIGHT]

My opinion doesn't count here because of my join date and post count, but I wanted to thank those still fighting this. If we roll over on the issue, they will not stop. Next will be bi-metal jackets, lead cores for environmental issues, and copper designs will be too expensive.

I'm really suprised by this roll over and let it happen attitude by some.This is back door gun control?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

File this under "What to Expect Going Forward"; but DON'T STOP SENDING LETTERS TO ATF AND YOUR CONGRESSMEN! It may not impact what ATF intends to do; but it still has valuable possibilities in both legislation and litigation.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ned-common-at15-green-tip-ammunition-n1966761

Summary: ATF banned M855 greentip in the latest edition of the Federal Regulations (which is updated only every several years) even before they asked us for any comment.

 

[climbnjump]

File this under "What to Expect Going Forward"; but DON'T STOP SENDING LETTERS TO ATF AND YOUR CONGRESSMEN! It may not impact what ATF intends to do; but it still has valuable possibilities in both legislation and litigation.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ition-n1966761

Summary: ATF banned M855 greentip in the latest edition of the Federal Regulations (which is updated only every several years) even before they asked us for any comment.

A quote from the above link:

ATF changed the law unilaterally, didn't tell anyone about it and has now put up a bogus comment period that means nothing. Because of these actions, ATF and the White House have not only failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, but has gone around Congress to violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

If it is truly the case, the text that I put in bold and italics might provide an opening for a judge to block the ban if a lawsuit is brought forward.

In fact, failure to follow the Administrative Procedure Act were the grounds a federal judge used to block (at least temporarily) the immigration executive order.

Below is a quote from the following link (emphasis is again mine):
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/federal-judge-blocks-immigrant-benefits/

The states, in suing over both the new program and the expansion of the 2012 arrangements, had made two broad claims: a constitutional claim, that the president and other officials had failed to “faithfully execute” the laws, as Article II requires, and a claim that government officials put the changes into effect without approval by Congress and without following the proper procedures.

Judge Hanen ruled only on the procedural point, finding that the new policy was implemented in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the government to seek public reaction before implementing a new policy or program. He rejected the government’s argument that the program was solely a result of the exercise of enforcement discretion that was not subject to review by the courts and did not have to go through the APA procedures.

The judge's immigration ruling was released on Monday, Feb 16 and most likely the contents of it were known to government lawyers the previous week. And the public comment period for the ammo ban was opened just the previous Friday, Feb 13. I wonder if the belatedly opened comment period for the ammo ban was the government's attempt to avoid the situation that got them in trouble with the immigration issue. Or perhaps opening the comment period was just a means of announcing the ban, something they would have to have done sooner or later.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Too late. It appears the ATF instituted the ban on this ammo back in January or some time around there and the new handbook lists it as armor piercing.

This "30 day comment period" is - well - eh - ex post facto? A cover of some sort? Retroactive for all us time travelers?

See? I told you it wouldn't matter what we or Congress do.

About as many heads will roll over this faux pas as Bengasi, or the IRS debacle, or Hitlery's email server, etc. etc. etc.

(As an aside, how safe, secure and free do you feel now?)

Woody

 

[CoalTrain49]

You confuse "funding restrictions" with their agency budget.
Budgets for many Federal agencies contain restrictions on how the agency may spend their budget.

Nope, a "funding restriction" would be a restriction of funds (budget). Funds are not being restricted. Sequestration is a funding (budget) restriction. The ATF gets funded with more money every year. They have operational restrictions with the budget that they get. You are confusing operational restrictions with their budget. Ever work for a gov't agency? The ATF is going to get their clock cleaned here real soon.

But anyway, I get your point now.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

See? I told you it wouldn't matter what we or Congress do.

Yes. It does matter. It may not make a difference in how the agency goes forward; but it could very easily make a difference in litigation. It is really important that people understand this point. Your comments and letters to Congress are important even if they ultimately get ignored.

 

[bearcreek]

Ever heard of the Commerce Clause?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
"(The Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..."

Like it or not, but the USSC has ruled several times on the constitutionality of such regulation.

This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson and those like him insisted on the Bill of Rights. They knew that things like the Commerce Clause could easily be used by power hungry, corrupt politicians in ways that had nothing to do with the original intention. The BOR was supposed to clarify and protect rights that weren't 100% clear in the rest of the Constitution. Basically, 2A trumps Commerce Clause, or at least is supposed to.