Discussion in 'Activism' started by Trent, Feb 14, 2015.
I sent this earlier here [email protected]. Hasn't bounced yet.
Does not get much easier than this:
Note that your name and address must accompany your letter, else it goes to the round file. You can also write your own letter or use the pre-written ones offered.
Modern FAX systems go straight to digital file.
No paper involved on the receiving end.
Fox has picked it up now, but they've mangled the story so much that they've proven they're no friend to us. They misstate or leave off our points and the NRA's as well as the House letter.
At least more people will have heard and more people may then look for rational sources of info and contact their Congresscritters.
I used the savem855.com to fax a letter as well. Remember to keep pressure on your elected officials.
As you can see many of us have used the email address for BATFE comments and we've received no indication of a bounceback.
FOX is the only friend we have in the media and they're the ones putting this in the national spotlight. They've been talking about it all day and the first I heard about Congress getting involved was on FOX yesterday. I haven't heard anything that indicates they're not on our side.
What I saw last night on Fox was the host describing it as "a common type of ammo for AR5 rifles". They interviewed a guy from the NSSF who put a lot of emphasis on the 30-year exemption, no cop ever been shot through a vest with M855, millions of rounds in use, most rifle rounds go through vests regardless of construction, the author's of the law's public statement about not intended it to apply to rifle ammo, etc. I personally would have liked a mention of it not meeting the statutory definition but it was still good stuff.
You can't drag even sympathetic member of the public too far into the technical weeds. They have their own hobbies and time sinks. Some guy who debates the merits of Ford 8.8" vs. 9" differentials and may not even own a gun or care to learn about legislative history, the regulatory process, etc. If he is sympathetic, it is enough for him that a type of ammo around for 30 years and never used to kill a cop, is about to be banned by executive action reinterpreting an old law. If he is an anti, he probably does not care about process (in my opinion far to many people on all sides of issues care too little about process).
Good news! Rep. Bob Goodlatte's (the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who oversees ATF) letter about this matter now has 172 co-signers after just two days. The Senate is also going to take up this issue as well. Keep up the pressure!
Fox is based out of NYC; keep reasonable expectations, please. No, they won't know, understand, or regurgitate our positions accurately. As long as they get across that this is bull, that's good enough.
Source citing for Bartholomew Roberts on post 109, .
Alright guys, let's keep it up!
Sent a letter via http://savem855.com/.
Thanks for the heads up Jlr2267!
Will someone explain this whole thing to me? Is the bullet in question something different than a FMJ? If so, why do we want to keep it available? I'm asking out of ignorance. I don't have an AR or any .223 rifle, never did any research. I've seen pics in the recent news that the bullet in question has a green tip. What's up with that? Thanks in advance.
Under a 1986 law, ATF has the power to ban handgun ammo designed to penetrate soft body armor. At handgun velocities, about the only way you can do that is using harder metals. Of course, almost all centerfire rifle calibers can penetrate soft body armor because of the much higher velocity and lower-drag bullets.
The original law was intended to target only handguns; but ATF takes the view that unstocked firearms in centerfire rifle calibers (legally a "pistol" but typically around 4-5lbs and 24-26" long, so much closer to a rifle in size than a handgun) are handguns and so rifle ammo that meets the definition of the law can be banned.
No. It is classified as "ball" ammo by the military. The only difference between this and other FMJ is it has a 10gr mild steel cap. This helps give it a better ballistic coefficient and lets it penetrate 3mm of 10ga mild steel at 600yds. The old ball round had difficulty with that test at 550yds; but penetrates better up close due to its higher initial velocity.
Well, ATF has officially acknowledged the ammo was primarily used for sporting purposes for 30 years now. It is one of the most common types of 5.56x45 available and commonly used for practice due to the low cost of surplus ammo. From an even more troubling perspective, the rationale that ATF is using to ban it makes two disturbing assertions:
1) Multi-shot handguns do not have a primarily sporting purpose
2) Even if 40 million people are using a certain ammo for an ATF-recognized sporting purpose, the existence of a single multi-shot handgun that takes that ammo and that is in the ordinary channels of commerce makes all of that ammo non-sporting and bannable.
Both of those assertions have much deeper/worse implications that cannot be left unchallenged.
The U.S. Army painted the tips of their ammo green so it wouldn't get mixed up with older ball ammo. M855 requires a 1:9 twist to stabilize it and can't be used in older military rifles with 1:12 barrels accurately (emergency use only at short range). So they wanted an easy way to distinguish it from the older 55gr ball. Foreign made ammo and some made for the civilian market only usually don't have the green tip. The Army has since moved on to a newer, more effective ball ammo called M855A1.
Friend of mine at work had an interesting perspeslctive on this m855 ban. He said lake city is in the process of converting over to the new round, m855a1 and won't be making the 855 round anymore. He believes this is all a rouse from the Obama admin and the ATF to proclaim progress on gun control to their base. Meanwhile m855a1 is set to become the next 62gr round on the market. Interesting idea I must say.
I guess my only concern is the ATF could just ban the new round too under the same logic... Which would suck because its supposed to be about $.06 cheaper per round. Plus who has heard if m855a1 will even be commercially available?
I'm just not as in-the-know and would be curious to see what you all think of these possibilities.
See this thread for a detailed explantion of armor piercing and M855 ball ammunition.http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=773836&p=9825940#post9825940
There are several reasons we want to keep M855 ball available. First, it is one of the most commonly available ammunition types for the AR15 which has become the most commonly sold rifle in the past decade. It is relatively inexpensive as well which helps make it very popular. Since M855 ball is classified by the U.S. military as ball instead of armor piercing AND the M855 projectile doesn't meet the specific definition of armor piercing under the law that BATFE claims to be regulating the sale of the ammunition under BATFE is trying to ban one of the most common AR15 rounds by lying about what it is. Do you want them to be able to take a popular and inexpensive type of ammo off the market by defining it whatever they want to define it as?
That's exactly what this is a prelude to. If they get away with redefining M855 ball ammunition as armor piercing they will quickly ban M855A1 ball ammunition as armor piercing as well.
M855A1 more closely fits the definition of AP they use than M855. It has no chance.
Okay, thanks very much. I understand it now. I'm with everyone here who supports keeping the ammo free of gov't restrictions. I would very much like to have a Ranch Rifle or Mini-14. I'll do my part to voice my reasons (that you fellows graciously furnished). thanks.
Frankly, there probably isn't a person here who gives this more than a 50% chance of being overturned, but it's more of a chance than it was a week ago. Facts and statistics are the enemy of liberals. They deal in emotion.
I've been in the RKBA struggle for decades and because I've become something of a wonk on the process I actually expect better than a 50% chance to see this round stopped now that Congress has engaged and BATFE made the strategic error of notifying the public outside of normal channels in the Federal Register. That failure to follow process and Congressional engagement on the question could realistically lead to them withdrawing this proposed change AND may lead to a bill using Senator Moynihan's own intent to only ban ammunition that both met the performance standard and was designed to be used in a handgun. The last is a long shot, but putting BATFE on the spot and having them backtrack this isn't.
I sure hope you're right. In normal times, I would've agreed with you, but the current administration thinks nothing of rewriting the rules to suit their purposes regardless of Congress and/or public sentiment. I feel the courts may be our real hope.
In normal times? Like when the ATF banned barrels from parts kits with Rs in control of POTUS and Congress? These are normal times. ATF bans stuff all the time.
The SBR shenanigans both before and after the T/C court case were even more funkified than what AR pistol owners have to deal with now. We're making progress, it's just in a halting Whack-a-Mole way. I, too, think this whole excursion was poorly timed, as it will be a welcome distraction from congressional budget battles (and uniting for Republicans no doubt weary from infighting on the same)
I'd love to hear from some potential presidential candidates on this issue, but I'm sure all are too cowardly to weigh in before it is too late for their opinion to matter.
If you write them you might see a sound bite on it. You can't wait for it to happen, you have to put some effort into it.
Why does there seem to be so much focus on convincing the ATF, or media, that the round is used for "sporting purposes"? I don't recall the constitution saying anything about sporting. I understand that we may think that is the argument we can win, but if we are at that point, arguing on their chosen turf to convince them not to take away rights that don't come from them and they don't have the power to take, isn't it a bit too late?
I think we just cheapen the whole argument by playing into the "sporting" defense.
Well, once the prices go up if we have any issues we can always petition the government for redress of grievances right? Sorry. Had to vent.
Separate names with a comma.