Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Trent, Feb 14, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tcoz

    tcoz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    South Carolina Lowcountry
    I have to say I'm very proud to be a Gun Rights supporter and a gun owner right about now. They way we've banded together and really made our voice be heard in a short amount of time and then to enlist the aid of Congress in our fight is something that I doubt very many special interest groups could accomplish. The print media as well as the over-the-air media has had numerous stories and whether they support our cause or not, they've made the public very aware of what's going on. Surprisingly, I've read some pretty objective pieces in sources that i wouldn't have expected such objectivity from. It's not the bullet ban specifically, but the manner in which its being attempted that has made this such a big story. Now, let's just hope the story has a happy ending.
     
  2. another pake

    another pake Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Min ne sota, ya
    hso, that was the gist of my complaint to the Congressman. I can't imagine that they very much appreciate being usurped but that is in effect what is happening.
     
  3. another pake

    another pake Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Min ne sota, ya
    More calls to Congressmen are in order. If clarifications to the LEOPA original intent are needed they should come from the ATF the originators of the legislation in Congress, not the other way around.

    But we know from whence the wind blows.
     
  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  5. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
  6. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Sorry if this sounds dumb but can't Congress just pass an exemption on M855 and make it a permanent law?"
    Absolutely, and this is actually the proper usage of congress's powers (as opposed to delegating them away to the Executive branch's discretion). In fact, the only thing stopping them from doing so is something we aren't typically allowed to discuss here, so...

    HSO (and Goodlatte, I guess ;)),
    That letter is exceptional. I've never read anything governmental pertaining to gun issues presented so competently before, from either side of the issue. Even our favorite pro-gun court cases contain a few hard swallows of "logick." Whoever is feeding those guys their memo points deserves a bucket of gold stars (at least, I certainly hope that Goodlatte/et al aren't personally wasting as much of their precious time on this niche-of-a-niche issue as we gunnies are :D), I'd love to know who is involved in lobbying them. My guess is Gura's peoples' fingerprints are there somewhere, simply because the letter reads like an amicus brief :cool:

    TCB
     
  7. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    Texas
    I sent a letter to Federal last night. This is what I found in my e-mail this afternoon.

    Mr, XXXX
    Vista Outdoor is reviewing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposal to prohibit the manufacture and sale of 5.56mm M855 ball ammunition for non-military recreational use. This cartridge is the choice of many recreational and target shooting enthusiasts who need safe, reliable and affordable ammunition. We are working with the NSSF, our industry trade association, and other partners on a comprehensive response. We encourage consumers to participate in the public comment process to make their voices heard by writing to [email protected] before March 16, 2015.

    Thanks
    Federal

    Ask everyone to partake.
     
  8. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,700
    Location:
    Virginia
    What sort of monetary impact would this have on manufacturers who can't sell rejected contract ammo? I would think they would be bringing suit too
     
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    The goal of the GOCO manufacturers is to minimize out of spec or overrun ammunition so it would be relatively minor, BUT the impact on the taxpayer would be greater since it would require another expense be incurred to destroy that ammunition driving the contracting assumptions up.

    The far greater impact would be to the manufacturers that are producing specifically for the consumer market.
     
  10. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Well, I finally got around to getting nice letters off to each of my various reps, thanking or imploring them for support of Rep. Goodlatte's letter as necessary. I don't suppose there's a Senate version (or list of signing senators) of the letter making the rounds at this point, as well?

    I also contacted several of the potential presidential candidates, in case any (including Hillary) are balls-ey enough to actually weigh in on something in advance of next year's election :rolleyes:. Hopefully some of the less-experienced guys' knack for tossing out lines off the cuff will get us some valuable opinions in advance of the primaries; nothing too fancy or technical, just "American gun owners tell me these new regs are bogus, and I trust their word over the BATFE" would be wonderful :)

    TCB
     
  11. T2K

    T2K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    South Carolina
    That letter, and seeing my Rep's signature there, made me happy. We really CAN get our game together and do things the right way.

    If the BATFE proceeds to ignore this and ban M855 it will be a real line in the sand situation.
     
  12. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Folks that have their posts missing have drifted off the narrow focus of practical measures to stop this specific issue and gotten into broader issues. That may be appropriate for the Legal forum or for a thread in Activism Discussion, but here in Activism we're focused on working this one task. Broader political and philosophical discussions need to done elsewhere and that sharp focus on what we are doing here and now on this one problem needs to be maintained.
     
  13. hatt

    hatt member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    558
    hso. Withholding votes and money from people not working for you seems to me the most fundamental of "activism." Let's be honest. Your letter writing and e mail stuff is worthless. You'll see in a month or so when the new regs are announced. The question is will you go back to the same old "we'll get em next time" routine or maybe be open to something else?
     
  14. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    hatt,

    The idea of "voting the SoAndSos" out isn't going to address THIS particular problem NOW since it isn't an option here/now. That's off in the future and too broad for this particular problem and does nothing now to address THIS problem (it also doesn't present a plan to accomplish voting the SoAndSos out in the future). Focusing on the problem here/now and saving the broader future issue (or broader past) for another thread is what we need since we can't vote the SoAndSos out here and now. That's why we're so specific in the sticky about posting in Activism (have a specific plan of action that others can practically apply to address the issue at hand).

    What do you have to address this problem here now?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2015
  15. hatt

    hatt member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    558
    There is no current plan. The ruling will go through. The only move is the next move. You really think a few gun people writing Mr. Establishment(R) in DC is going to change the course? And be honest. Most people(tens of millions) are very unhappy with executive amnesty, Obamacare, etc, and a road reflector made more noise than their concerns.

    Anyway maybe someone can start a new thread to talk about some real solutions.
     
  16. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Absolutely. Look at the ATF41P proposal - the implementation period for that was pushed back over a year just as a result of the sheer volume and quality of comments in opposition. That is a whole year plus of people who might have been shut out of NFA ownership otherwise, even if ATF does what it planned on anyway.

    And as I mentioned in the legal thread, writing the "establishment" not only could potentially help us immediately; but the comments to ATF are evidence in the official record. The letters from Congress are also evidence. Even if the attempts are ultimately unsuccessful, a good effort here lays the groundwork for litigation later. Is the prohibition longstanding? Is M855 in common use?

    Most notices in the Federal Register get very little in the way of responses. If we hit them with 100,000 comments over a "policy change" that wasn't even published in the Federal Register - it makes it hard to argue that M855 is unusual or that the primary intent is other than sporting.
     
  17. RX-178

    RX-178 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,648
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    We all have something else to say to our congresscritters now.

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

    In a nutshell, the ATF already ILLEGALLY changed their regulations to ban M855 as early back as January, a process which is described as taking months to compile, so they were doing it about as soon as the election was over.

    They changed the regulations without informing Congress.

    They changed the regulations without informing the American people.

    They tried to cover this up with an internal (non-federal register) comment period after they realized what would happen if they tried to enforce it, after the laws on changed regulations became relevant to Obama's immigration agenda.
     
  18. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,107
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Cellphone and a pen!
     
  19. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    It is interesting that an attempt that download the BATFE Federal Firearms Regulation Guide 2014 edition leads to a "page not found" message, but a search of the BATFE's publications finds this remarkable bit of doublespeak claiming a "publishing error"-

    Notice of Publishing Error
    On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework, including legal and technical
    analysis, to guide its determination on what ammunition is "primarily intended for sporting purposes" for
    purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on Armor Piecing
    Ammunition. This proposed framework is posted for public comment only; no final decisions have been
    made as to its adoption.
    Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing
    of the exemptions for Armor Piercing Ammunition, and concluding that the absence of this listing
    indicates these exemptions have been rescinded.
    Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact
    they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on
    the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to
    5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the
    U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.
    The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide
    on page 166, which is posted here.
    The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing
    Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be
    corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.
     
  20. RX-178

    RX-178 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,648
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    'Dear elected Representative. I'm not buying the line from the ATF and as my Representative, you shouldn't either.'

    Yeah, I know it's a little crude, but if anyone would care to turn the sentiment into a nicely presentable form letter for us... :D
     
  21. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error"
    That's right; go run on back to your holes, you scared little rabbits! ;)

    Not that I would be so naiive to think this be a victory (matey), but it'd be pretty comical if this is the kind of back pedaling that ultimately leads to one. Sounds like the ATF is particularly worried about being found out that they violated proper procedure ('forgetting' the comment period for like a month, then offering a mere fig leaf of notice thereafter), since that's a way to court standing. As we've seen, the battle to deny court standing to plaintiffs has been one of, if not the primary legal defenses by this administration (I believe George III's courts used denial of standing as a primary defense against colonists' complaints, as well) since it lets them conveniently avoid defending at all their indefensible actions.

    **********

    Here's Senator Cornyn's opinion (first response I've gotten back; within two days, I think)

    TCB
     
  22. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,839
    Location:
    SW MO
  23. LeonCarr

    LeonCarr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,821
    Location:
    At The Range
    Senator Cornyn sent me the exact same response.

    The more letters our reps get, the better results we will get.

    Just my .02,
    LeonCarr
     
  24. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    54,601
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    As some have recognized, this is another opportunity for a letter writing campaign accusing the BATFE of having shown their clear intent by this "error" in the this Federal Firearms Regulation Guide to carry out the usurpation of Congress's prerogative to make law by BATFE creating a definition of armor piercing ammunition counter to the existing law and their intent to do this without oversight or comment imposing this restriction on the 2A rights of the citizens by fiat.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  25. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,158
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Well, I don't think it's really a taboo subject. Every bill has to go through the WH. So that makes this a non-starter and congress knows it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice