OilyPablo
Member
Getting some Senators involved could be key.
That was literally in another Universe, far, far away....Yes, as pointed out previously the once fired brass fiasco was stopped.
It took legislators sending letters, but that's often how you get an
agency recalibrated on an issue.
Yes, as pointed out previously the once fired brass fiasco was stopped. It took legislators sending letters, but that's often how you get an agency recalibrated on an issue.
Rolling on our backs and peeing ourselves will insure we get what we have earned.
Yes, as pointed out previously the once fired brass fiasco was stopped. It took legislators sending letters, but that's often how you get an agency recalibrated on an issue.
MEHavey said:Does ANYbody on this board actually believe that ANYthing submitted by the
public against this move will stop ANYthing associated w/ this ammunition ban ?
Really? I recall many members here saying the ATFs only oversight was from the same folks giving them their marching orders, the Executive
So here we have ammunition manufacturers and America’s 100-million-plus gun owners driving innovation as a regulatory agency (in this case the ATF) is trying to keep up. That’s to be expected—laws have to be applied and, when outdated, rewritten. However, this takes a hard turn toward politics when you read the reasoning within this latest ATF move.
Well, let’s step back a second. Before getting into that, it’s important to note that though the GCA’s ban on “armor piercing” handgun ammo is certainly outdated, the reasoning behind it is not. This ban was designed to save the lives of police officers. If commonly sold handgun ammo designed for the self-defense and target market can shoot through a bulletproof vest then our police officers will have lost a potentially critical protection. But this begs the question: Is .223 M855 ball ammunition currently a problem for law enforcement? Or, more precisely, is M855 ball ammunition when shot from handguns killing law-enforcement officers? According to the FBI’s “uniform crime reports” about 2.5 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any caliber. The FBI does not break out its statistics by caliber. I was also not able to uncover a single murder of a police officer in a shooting where someone used a handgun chambered in .223—much less one using M855 ball ammunition. (The spokesperson for the ATF has thus far failed to respond to questions.)
Given that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem, it doesn’t seem conspiratorial to wonder if this is a political move orchestrated to make it more expensive to shoot AR-15s, which are traditionally chambered in .223. In its argument for this rule change, the ATF is clearly justifying expanding the ammo ban to traditional rifle calibers. So then, might the ATF’s next move be to ban ammo for other popular military/civilian calibers like the .308 and .30-06? How about the bullets used for the .500 S&W or other large handgun calibers? If this goes forward the ATF would be assuming this regulatory authority.
In fact, while arguing that definitions of what bullets are banned shouldn’t be decided by the ammunition’s intended use, but instead should be solely determined at ATF’s discretion, the ATF says, “the intent of one group of potential consumers (criminals) is no more determinative than the intent of manufacturers.” The ATF’s lumping of law-abiding gun owners as a group of “potential consumers” with “criminals” rankled many in the gun-rights community. This and other language in the proposal is leading many to argue this is all about an end-run around Congress to implement gun control.
Whatever the motivation for this change might be, as the ATF attempts to define its way to a larger regulatory role over a constitutional right, it’s clearly time for Congress to clarify its legislation or risk being left meaningless. (The ATF has opened a public-comment period until March 16. Email [email protected] to give your opinion.)
We've just had a string of clear examples (DHS, HHS, Treasury/IRS, FCC) wherein it is evident that this is no longer the case.The legislature controls the purse strings and can drag the regulatory agency leadership and
anyone in the agency in to testify before the various committees. The agencies do not want
to have angry Congress tie up their budgets nor do they want them to pass focused legislation
blocking or reversing their decisions.
I love how they make the point that I'm screaming about in my signature line.Forbes has picked this up and they're supportive of our position and provides ammunition for our opposition to the BATFE in this case. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...is-the-atf-moving-to-ban-common-rifle-ammo/2/
MEHavey,
The continued defeatist posts aren't adding anything constructive to the discussion so what do you suggest to help us instead of claiming nothing can be done?
I will bow out.The continued defeatist posts .....
I will bow out.
I simply hope that we don't kid ourselves in expecting public reaction to block what is
(IMO) the Executive modus operandi now in evidence for the next 680+ days.
Again, I'm going to bow out....counter to the requirements of the forum.
We've just had a string of clear examples (DHS, HHS, Treasury/IRS, FCC) wherein it is evident that this is no longer the case.
"Stop me if you can," has become the new Excutive operating principle.
And so far, the only organization charged w/ that job stands silent.
I forgot to mention that last night when I heard the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee talking about this, I was impressed by the fact that he wasn't only talking about an overreach of power but also had some knowledge of WHY M855 shouldn't be banned. Things like the composition of the bullet, the fact that the round has never been used to injure a law enforcement officer, that it's the second most used round by target shooters, sportsmen and even some hunters and other statistics and things that obviously came from either doing some research or from reading emails sent by people like you and me.