BATFE proposes to ban SS109 & M855 ammunition for civilian sales.

[herrwalther]

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?

The Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act (LEOPA) that the ATF is trying to ban M855 under exempts common ammunition that is used in target or sporting purpose. The defense of M855 is two pronged: sport/target use and it isn't AP ammo by definition. The AP ammo isn't going to be a popular defense because it is more technical for the average person. The "it is our right defense" is true but isn't very convincing to the average person again.

 

[USAav8r]

Fair enough. I was afraid that was the answer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The "sporting purposes" discussion is important for another reason. ATF has the power to ban any projectile that MAY be used in a handgun and is made out of the verboten metals. There are handguns in 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 7.62x35, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R. As some states enact environmental laws prohibiting the use of lead, non-lead ammunition will become very difficult to get if ATF defines "sporting purposes" in the way they propose here.

And since it is the projectile that is banned - huge swaths of ammo using common .30 caliber projectiles will be affected. Shooters in those states won't be able to use lead ammo due to state law and won't be able to use non-lead ammo due to LEOPA if this is allowed to stand.

 

[Thermactor]

The "sporting purposes" discussion is important for another reason. ATF has the power to ban any projectile that MAY be used in a handgun and is made out of the verboten metals. There are handguns in 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 7.62x35, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R. As some states enact environmental laws prohibiting the use of lead, non-lead ammunition will become very difficult to get if ATF defines "sporting purposes" in the way they propose here.

And since it is the projectile that is banned - huge swaths of ammo using common .30 caliber projectiles will be affected. Shooters in those states won't be able to use lead ammo due to state law and won't be able to use non-lead ammo due to LEOPA if this is allowed to stand.

= de facto gun ban, yes sir
This is how the Executive directs agencies under his command to get the results he wants when Congress won't comply.
incrementalist CA environmental protection laws mandating non-lead bullets, and ATF's incrementalist new edicts effectively mandating lead bullets coalesce nicely into a ban situation. They are relentlessly chipping away at the shooting sports from one angle or another whether from Federal regs or some State regs.

 

[hso]

Thermactor,

The EPA has specifically rejected calls for banning lead based ammunition recently pointing out that ammunition is exempt under Federal law so pointing at Fed environmental regulations is inconsistent with the facts. The California state legislature passed the lead ammunition ban that you may be confusing with the Fed EPA which refuses to regulate lead ammunition. This myth keeps being brought up so it is important to get the facts straight.

 

[Thermactor]

hso,
I conflated the two examples and adjusted accordingly. Thanks.

 

[herrwalther]

Fair enough. I was afraid that was the answer.

I don't really care for the strategy either. Personnaly I would prefer fighting the ban on a rights basis. The sporting clause is a loophole put in by the ATF, an organization that is notorious for changing their own rules or not abiding by their own rules.

 

[Averageman]

Considering that there is a movement to ban the general public from owning body armor this makes things a bit confusing and contradictory.
On one hand they want to protect LEO's from "Armor Piercing" ammunition ( even if the Military calls it ball ammo) on the other they do not want the general public to own body armor.
I think someone making the argument for M855 might want to point out the hipocracy.

 

[tcoz]

I just read this...

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/234292-gun-legislation-protects-ar-15-ammunition

 

[hso]

“No final determinations have been made and we won’t make any determinations until we’ve reviewed the comments submitted by industry, law enforcement and the public at large,” ATF spokesman Corey Ray told The Hill last week.

But Republicans are looking to pre-empt the ammunition restrictions.

That's what we're looking for.

prohibit the ATF or any other federal agency from issuing or enforcing any new restriction or prohibition on the manufacture, importation or sale of ammunition in the United States.

Problem is that the BATFE is doing this as they've regulated M855 under LEOPA as armor piercing, but with an exemption, so the bill would have to be very carefully worded to ensure it left no doubt that it was addressing rifle ammunition under GCA and LEOPA. What is needed is an amendment to reintroduce Senator Moynihan's "intended and designed" for handgun language and additional language exempting rifle ammunition whether it fires out of a rifle or handgun since anyone can build a handgun that shoots rifle ammunition (even if not practical as a handgun).

 

[MEHavey]

Bowing back in....

The White House has now weighed in with "...it's a common sense step... to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/white-house-says-ammo-ban-will-save-cops-lives/

It's a done deal.
(though I will retract/aplogize if found to be in error)

 

[Trent]

Bowing back in....

The White House has now weighed in with "...it's a common sense step... to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/white-house-says-ammo-ban-will-save-cops-lives/

It's a done deal.
(though I will retract/aplogize if found to be in error)

What is your point? Everyone knows where this push was coming from - executive branch, and straight from the top. The White House weighing in isn't a sign of defeat for us, it's a sign of desperation for them. Big O has to have his spokesman come out and make a statement about public safety complete with some hand wringing 'for the children!!!' - to try to rally some support for his agenda.

Make no mistake, it is HIS agenda we are fighting here, not some BATFE bureaucrat who got their panties in a twist over some green painted bullets... at least the true opponent has stepped out in to the light now and said this is their agenda, instead of hiding behind one of their agencies and playing proxy games.

A bullet banning President? You realize what an advantage this has become for us, on a broader sense?

A vote for a law change to stop the executive abuse of power would be rather telling, for voters, wouldn't it? I mean, knowing who votes which way?

Even if we lose and a bill is vetoed we have gained something very important here.

You seem to have a defeatist attitude but fail to consider that there is a much larger game being played in D.C., and this is just a small battleground. You need to consider that NONE of this would be happening if it weren't for a concentrated grassroots effort of gun owners. Politicians don't rally behind a cause if they aren't getting hammered from every angle by the only thing they truly fear - the voters.

Your decision of "opting out" of participating in this, at least what you've indicated in past posts, is exactly what we do not need. We need people to get engaged. We need people to stand up and say "no more abuse of power." We need everyone on board, because the stronger we are together on (relatively minor) issues such as this, the weaker the other side becomes when they try something truly damaging to us; like a repeat of the AW ban, etc.

Earlier you posted;

Does ANYbody on this board actually believe that ANYthing submitted by the
public against this move will stop ANYthing associated w/ this ammunition ban ?

Consider the larger picture here.

The public outcry over 'banning our bullets' has been big enough that it is leading in to legislative action.

The white house has now made a statement saying "yes we want to ban your bullets" (which is amazing, on it's own, that they'd go that far; that's a profoundly stupid mistake on their part, politically).

That's a win-win for us. If they fix the ignorant law, great (it'll be vetoed and we probably won't have enough votes to override a veto - but this still is a win because it puts the ball DIRECTLY on POTUS shoulders.)

If they don't pass it, we know which legislators are the bad guys (if they're willing to ban our bullets, well, they're willing to come after the rest of it; and they are part of the broken machine in Washington.)

No matter what happens, this strengthens us.

There's no "losing" there, even if the ban goes through, we still win a huge political victory.

The argument of "you couldn't get our guns so now you go after our bullets" will resonate with *all* gun owners, very strongly. And that's a very real argument to make now that POTUS spokesperson has opened his mouth.

If grassroots efforts hadn't been started, the white house never would have stretched their neck out on a public statement; this all would have happened quietly, and people would have just rolled over, as they have with every OTHER ATF decision in the past...

 

[OilyPablo]

Great post Trent.

 

[tcoz]

Absolutely on the mark Trent. I think he sees a rising tide against the ban and feels it's time to appeal to the emotions of the public. Nothing unexpected, but to me it's a good sign.

 

[hso]

We know that the BATFE's position would be defended by this administration so there's nothing surprising if in the next to the last question of yesterday's press briefing(you gotta scroll waayyyy down to the end in the link) the Press Secretary is asked by Fred about the Congressional letter opposing the BATFE's proposed ban and he says that the proposed ban is "common sense" (where have we heard that before). It doesn't mean that anything has changed.

How 'bout we stay focused on the work at hand of beating this thing and not waste people's time with something so trivial as the Press Secretary responding to a question in a press briefing?

 

[Trent]

HSO;

Not to try to derail the thread, BUT - that next to last question of yesterday's press briefing has sparked more mainstream news coverage of this issue, and subsequent uproar, than any single remark to date. The Press Secretary just inserted foot in mouth and gave our cause a shot in the arm that really nothing else could have possibly done. "The Man" says he wants our bullets. (<< what the average Joe reads in to it)

Lots of headlines today "White house to ban rifle ammo" (and various other phrasing)

Heck when I was at the supermarket yesterday getting steaks cut, the butcher behind the counter remarked to me "If they ban one bullet, they'll ban 'em all, right?"

I was left scratching my head for a few seconds, trying to decipher why this guy slicing up steaks for me just happened to bring up the ATF bullet ban??!!

Then I remembered I was wearing my NRA Certified Instructor shirt.

If the butcher at the neighborhood meat market is talking about bullets, that's a good sign, and indicative that our grassroots effort is working.

It's also important to follow up with that and tell people "hey YOU can do something about this too" - when I head in to town tonight for the gun club board meeting I'm taking instructions with on what people can do, and dropping one off at the butchers on the way.

 

[hso]

If the butcher at the neighborhood meat market is talking about bullets, that's a good sign, and indicative that our grassroots effort is working.

Yes, very true!

 

[mokin]

Has anybody seen the Congressional letter? Hopefully, at least one of my congressmen put their name on said letter. I would like to offer thanks/encouragement as necessary. I think this is a fight the White House didn't want or expect. Let's keep up the pressure.

 

[hso]

Just push your congresscritters by email and fax and letter to do everything in their power to stop the ban of M855. Don't hope they're in our corner, push them.

 

[crazysccrmd]

Here's a quick easy, one stop way to send a letter to your Senators, Representatives and the ATF. You can use one of their form letters or type your own.

http://www.savem855.com/

 

[another pake]

FWIW, I agree Trent that the Administration's recent shenanigans and the grass roots efforts of legitimate gun owners to highlight them is bringing a renewed awareness to the general public. How long such awareness remains a part of their day to day thought process I don't know, but for example, yesterday in a Fargo, ND 6PM newscast on two stations, one an NBC affiliate, the other a CBS affiliate, the second story of the broadcast dealt with the impending ban of .223 ammo. It was a pretty fair handed presentation of what is going on and for once our side weren't branded as extremist crazies.

I see and hear more and more people citing more and more examples of the blurred lines between the Executive and Legislative branches. The business of running the country via Executive Order is not sitting well with people, although they are not united yet as to why.

Also what I have personally experienced is that it is becoming more and more difficult to communicate with my Congressman's office via phone. E-mail and fax seem to be the way now, but they feel less effective somehow. I take this to mean that more people are contacting their reps and that is usually a good thing.

 

[hatt]

The "sporting purposes" discussion is important for another reason. ATF has the power to ban any projectile that MAY be used in a handgun and is made out of the verboten metals. There are handguns in 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 7.62x35, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R. As some states enact environmental laws prohibiting the use of lead, non-lead ammunition will become very difficult to get if ATF defines "sporting purposes" in the way they propose here.

And since it is the projectile that is banned - huge swaths of ammo using common .30 caliber projectiles will be affected. Shooters in those states won't be able to use lead ammo due to state law and won't be able to use non-lead ammo due to LEOPA if this is allowed to stand.

Not really. They are abominations that consist of a rifle with no stock strictly produced to get around idiotic laws. We've let politicians and bureaucrats set definitions that defy common sense.

 

[lilguy]

Some say it's being replaced with a new round. Propose a ban and emidiately clear out the millions of obsolete rounds in inventory. Obama sure can sell guns and ammo.

Sending faxes to Senator and Rep. ATF is a waste of paper but I'll get one to them also.

 

[another pake]

FWIW, I finally got through to my Representative's D.C. Office by phone this morning. He happens to be a Democrat. Expressed my concern over governing via Executive Order citing the ammunition issue as an example. To my surprise I was told that the Congressman shares my concern and that he has sent a letter to the Administrator of ATF asking for "a clarification" and expressing disapproval of using the vagaries in the language of the Law Enforcement Protection Act to further the agenda of the Executive Branch.

Needless to say, I was pleased. Comments to the ATF are good, and needed, but they already know the rules. I can't clarify anything for them especially since they seem to be willing to ignore what the rule says now. I think we need to persevere by also contacting our Reps, in person, by voice, by fax, whatever. If enough Representatives tell each other that their constituents are PO'd it would have to have some effect.

Oversight seems to come into play here somewhere...

Or so it seems to me.

 

[hso]

It may be useful to claim this goes beyond interpretation of law and intrudes upon Congresses sole authority to make law since creating a definition at odds with the existing law is making new law for all intents and purposes.