M855 - 5.56 Pistol Ban?
- Thread starter rd_zzyzx
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. My Thompson Centers surely do have that pistol look about them.
First of all, I think they would be happy to ban all pistols, well everything actually. Having a law or directive that is loosely defined is right down their alley.
If you can ban any ammo that can be fired in a pistol that has equal or greater penetration to the already banned "cop killer" rounds then they will be able to ban all ammo for .223 and others. Well, we can't have that.
So, if they reclassify pistols that shoot rifle cartridges to be short barreled rifles and require the proper paper work then the ammo is not at risk.
A simple definition of a cartridge being pistol or rifle could be "What ever the first firearm produced for the cartridge was, that is the class", so if the .45 Long Colt was made for the revolver first it is a pistol cartridge, but if it was made for a lever action carbine first then it is a rifle cartridge.
No, I am not saying I want this. I am saying that is were this could go. So, obviously no classification is what I want, what we all want. But, maybe our legislators are willing to go down the slippery slope of reclassifying firearms.
I think that will be the coming down the road.
If you can ban any ammo that can be fired in a pistol that has equal or greater penetration to the already banned "cop killer" rounds then they will be able to ban all ammo for .223 and others. Well, we can't have that.
So, if they reclassify pistols that shoot rifle cartridges to be short barreled rifles and require the proper paper work then the ammo is not at risk.
A simple definition of a cartridge being pistol or rifle could be "What ever the first firearm produced for the cartridge was, that is the class", so if the .45 Long Colt was made for the revolver first it is a pistol cartridge, but if it was made for a lever action carbine first then it is a rifle cartridge.
No, I am not saying I want this. I am saying that is were this could go. So, obviously no classification is what I want, what we all want. But, maybe our legislators are willing to go down the slippery slope of reclassifying firearms.
I think that will be the coming down the road.
dogtown tom
Member
Really? Based on what?
The National Firearms Act defines rifle, pistol, SBR, etc............and a pistol is by definition not a short barreled rifle.
Yep. In 1934.
Hardtarget
Member
The thing is...we cannot ignore the advances and "new" guns on the market. There was no discussion about AR 15 rifle, or pistol in 1934 and I'm pretty sure there are other advances in technology I don't even know of.
If some elected types don't get their heads right, this will get ugly.
Mark
If some elected types don't get their heads right, this will get ugly.
Mark
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
Oh, that gave me a chuckle. Count on the elected types not getting it right. Count on some elected types intentionally not getting it right. It's already ugly. Count on it getting uglier.
Hardtarget
Member
Oh yes! I'm sure you are right. I was (very tongue-in-cheek) grasping at a straw that JUST MAYBE there were a few of 'em up there that still believed in the U.S. Constitution.
But...maybe not. I'm 65 now...maybe I'll die tomorrow and won't have to even care about it any more.
Mark
But...maybe not. I'm 65 now...maybe I'll die tomorrow and won't have to even care about it any more.
Mark
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The best solution to this problem is not the easiest.
What needs to happen is that the portion of the NFA covering short-barreled rifles and shotguns needs to be repealed for being anachronistic and useless vestiges of the original, and much stricter, NFA regs.
Length regulations on rifles and shotguns could only "make sense" in a world where the proposal to include handguns as part of the NFA made it through.
But we don't live in that world. The NFA handgun ban never made it into the final piece of legislation, and for those of us who live in the 21st century where handguns are readily available and concealed carry is legal in every state, it makes absolutely zero sense to have federal regulations governing the barrel length of rifles and shotguns in a misguided attempt to manage concealability.
So the best thing to do would be to repeal the SBR/SBS regs. Overnight all AR-pattern "pistols" become short-barreled rifles, and *poof* no more armor piercing .223 "handgun ammunition."
What needs to happen is that the portion of the NFA covering short-barreled rifles and shotguns needs to be repealed for being anachronistic and useless vestiges of the original, and much stricter, NFA regs.
Length regulations on rifles and shotguns could only "make sense" in a world where the proposal to include handguns as part of the NFA made it through.
But we don't live in that world. The NFA handgun ban never made it into the final piece of legislation, and for those of us who live in the 21st century where handguns are readily available and concealed carry is legal in every state, it makes absolutely zero sense to have federal regulations governing the barrel length of rifles and shotguns in a misguided attempt to manage concealability.
So the best thing to do would be to repeal the SBR/SBS regs. Overnight all AR-pattern "pistols" become short-barreled rifles, and *poof* no more armor piercing .223 "handgun ammunition."
Yes it has been discussed and noir won't happen because the law would have to be actually changed instead of distorted.
So, any handgun that can fire the .22 Long RIFLE cartridge is then subject to this?
I'm not aware of a legal definition of what constitutes a handgun or rifle cartridge under the law. And with what little I know of the NFA it's largely a division between .50 and up vs anything smaller.
The laws are written with barrel length and overall length of the weapon defining where it falls - not the cartridge.
A pistol can shoot anything, the Remington XP100 has been around since 1963 and there is no general concern it can shoot .30-06 armor piercing which is legally sold.
Ruger made a revolver than takes .30 Carbine. And you can get AP ammo in that, too. Heizer offers a pocket pistol in 5.56 and is tooling up for one in 7.62xs39.
To define a Short Barreled Rifle under the current law, it would mean changing the definition of what constitutes "rifle" barrel length to mean ANY barrel, and that a rifle would be ANY firearm without a stock.
The ATF is the chief guardian and administrator of what constitutes a rifle or pistol under the law, to change the definitions would mean gutting the NFA completely to accomplish banning a 5.56 AR pistol. Which is why they don't even try.
What the outgoing director did say is that Congress needs to outlaw all 5.56 ammo as cop killer bullets - which would not stand in a court of law simply because the ballistic application is one of the less powerful rounds on the market. Someone IS introducing that bill, where it will likely be considered side by side with a bill requiring the exact opposite, to keep 5.56 from ever being considered for a ban again.
Taking the OP's notion at face value, what I'm reading is a doom and gloom attitude that the political process is broken, when in fact the entire point is that it's WORKING, and the Administration was stymied once again in it's attempt to ban something even if incrementally.
The director is quitting because his legacy is one failure after another, he's thrown the ball to Congress so the Administration can blame THEM for failing to "protect" us, and he's getting out while he can - to the NFL where they can employ him to keep from being investigated, according to some.
Oh Woe is THEM, it's just another day in the trenches for supporting the 2A. If not this, then the next item on the list that the ruling elite fear the people would use against them.
Gun control is about disarming US to prevent being taken out of power when they go too far. A simple examination of world history proves that.
Real patriots are building their own AR pistols in 5.56 just to keep them scared. Anyone who sees the AR pistol as a scary thing needs to understand their attitude is the same as a NY representative trying to outlaw machetes - it's a class warfare action tinged with racism.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Really? Based on what?
The National Firearms Act defines rifle, pistol, SBR, etc............and a pistol is by definition not a short barreled rifle.
...
The definition in the law of armor piercing didn't matter to the Obama Administration's ATF. What makes you think those other definitions in the law will matter to them? They don't even abide the Constitution! :banghead:
Woody
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
They dont want to get it right, they have ZERO intention of getting it "Right".
They want to mess it up & cause confusion... Because then in the confusion they get to "Clarify" what the law means. Without having to actually get their ideas passed by Congress. This is how the EPA, BATFE all operate. They are "Just" clarifying what the law *means
*(To them, what they want it to mean, or what it should have meant, or what it means to them now, today, which may change tomorrow).
They want to mess it up & cause confusion... Because then in the confusion they get to "Clarify" what the law means. Without having to actually get their ideas passed by Congress. This is how the EPA, BATFE all operate. They are "Just" clarifying what the law *means
*(To them, what they want it to mean, or what it should have meant, or what it means to them now, today, which may change tomorrow).
leadcounsel
member
I'm thinking this just sheds light on the entire silliness of the whole categorization that is just total nonsense from a practical standpoint. For instance, ANY pistol in .308 will penetrate soft armor. Any hunting rifle will penetrate soft armor. If we start banning for this criteria, we will slash entire categories of guns.
Stock on a "pistol" (for control) = bad
Stock on a "rifle" (for control) = required
Forward grip on a "pistol" (for control) = bad
Forward grip (for control) on a "rifle" = ok
Short pistol (any caliber) = required
Short rifle (any caliber) = bad
Long pistol (any caliber) = bad
Long rifle (any caliber) = required
Smoothbore shotgun = ok
Smoothbore handgun/rifle = bad
Some steel core ammo okay, some not...
Some lead ammo okay, some not...
Some steel shot okay, some not...
Sprinkle in 922, arbitrary lengths, "once a rifle always a rifle" rules, and other obscure, nonsensical laws (hundreds of them) and one starts to see how ridiculous this all is.... Let's elect some people who will fix this by eliminating these stupid categories. All of this really strikes me as "infringements" and I read somewhere that there shall be no infringements...
A gun should be able to be of any length, fire any ammo designed for it, etc.
Stock on a "pistol" (for control) = bad
Stock on a "rifle" (for control) = required
Forward grip on a "pistol" (for control) = bad
Forward grip (for control) on a "rifle" = ok
Short pistol (any caliber) = required
Short rifle (any caliber) = bad
Long pistol (any caliber) = bad
Long rifle (any caliber) = required
Smoothbore shotgun = ok
Smoothbore handgun/rifle = bad
Some steel core ammo okay, some not...
Some lead ammo okay, some not...
Some steel shot okay, some not...
Sprinkle in 922, arbitrary lengths, "once a rifle always a rifle" rules, and other obscure, nonsensical laws (hundreds of them) and one starts to see how ridiculous this all is.... Let's elect some people who will fix this by eliminating these stupid categories. All of this really strikes me as "infringements" and I read somewhere that there shall be no infringements...
A gun should be able to be of any length, fire any ammo designed for it, etc.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"I'm thinking this just sheds light on the entire silliness of the whole categorization that is just total nonsense from a practical standpoint."
This is the inherent illogic underpinning the NFA. Perhaps not when it was written, but today we have a nearly continuous spectrum of cartridges from 22 Colibri up to 500 S&W that fall under no special exemptions or classifications, and the spectrum goes even further if you count large-bore ammo given sporting exemptions (+20ga shotgun, 50BMG, nitro-expresses, and of course 950 JDJ). The permutations of the platforms shooting these rounds are even more varied, inscrutable, and overlapping.
And that's just what's been invented so far.
I don't know exactly what we need to replace our current scheme of categorizations with (although I am convinced it will be replaced with something, never disbanded outright), but we need to make sure we avoid arbitrary stuff like lengths or weights or velocities, and for sure to avoid vague or evasive language like "sporting uses" or "design intent" that needlessly empower those who will enforce them.
TCB
This is the inherent illogic underpinning the NFA. Perhaps not when it was written, but today we have a nearly continuous spectrum of cartridges from 22 Colibri up to 500 S&W that fall under no special exemptions or classifications, and the spectrum goes even further if you count large-bore ammo given sporting exemptions (+20ga shotgun, 50BMG, nitro-expresses, and of course 950 JDJ). The permutations of the platforms shooting these rounds are even more varied, inscrutable, and overlapping.
And that's just what's been invented so far.
I don't know exactly what we need to replace our current scheme of categorizations with (although I am convinced it will be replaced with something, never disbanded outright), but we need to make sure we avoid arbitrary stuff like lengths or weights or velocities, and for sure to avoid vague or evasive language like "sporting uses" or "design intent" that needlessly empower those who will enforce them.
TCB
WardenWolf
member
What I predict is an outright ban on the use of any bottleneck cartridge in a pistol capable of firing more than one round without reloading. That ban will affect a very limited number of "pistol" cartridges, such as .357 Sig and .30 Tokarev, but will effectively ban all AR and AK pistols.
The concept of the .22 having an exemption is the point - writing the law in large concepts allows Congress to come up with all sorts of end run legislation for "special issues."
It only justifies eliminating the exemption that 5.56 has as it is. Special exemptions are no different than special codes to allow or disallow activities based on what the latest popular fad or Corporate lobbying gets thru.
As for restricting cartridges to non bottle neck only, the AR pistol user would simply move UP the ballistic scale and many new straight wall cartridges would then be alternatives. That's already getting traction in Southern Michigan.
One result might be a .357/9mm in a 5.56 case - which already exists as the .357 Max rimless.
The difficulty of writing legislation is that human ingenuity can and will find new technological expressions with to get around a concise and finite law. When switchblade knives were demonized and interstate trade was banned, it wasn't a major issue for many, but eventually Spyderco came up with the hole in the blade, pegs and discs sprouted, and even LEO's began carrying alternatives which defied the law and were even more useful. Cheaper, too. A "one handed knife" is now the standard - not the exclusion.
Ban AR's with an AWB, you get pump actions, unusual stocks, no stock at all, bullet buttons, top loading stripper clip variants. etc. They can legislate it all they want, we will get around it just to sell the answer. It's all about business.
They can only attempt an incremental ban with small effects. Overall we've pushed back, CCW is approaching nationwide reciprocity, and the shenanigans of politicians are educating voters who may not have even cared before.
I'm as concerned as the next guy, but in the long run - and those of us who have been around with some perspective - things are a lot better than they were.
It only justifies eliminating the exemption that 5.56 has as it is. Special exemptions are no different than special codes to allow or disallow activities based on what the latest popular fad or Corporate lobbying gets thru.
As for restricting cartridges to non bottle neck only, the AR pistol user would simply move UP the ballistic scale and many new straight wall cartridges would then be alternatives. That's already getting traction in Southern Michigan.
One result might be a .357/9mm in a 5.56 case - which already exists as the .357 Max rimless.
The difficulty of writing legislation is that human ingenuity can and will find new technological expressions with to get around a concise and finite law. When switchblade knives were demonized and interstate trade was banned, it wasn't a major issue for many, but eventually Spyderco came up with the hole in the blade, pegs and discs sprouted, and even LEO's began carrying alternatives which defied the law and were even more useful. Cheaper, too. A "one handed knife" is now the standard - not the exclusion.
Ban AR's with an AWB, you get pump actions, unusual stocks, no stock at all, bullet buttons, top loading stripper clip variants. etc. They can legislate it all they want, we will get around it just to sell the answer. It's all about business.
They can only attempt an incremental ban with small effects. Overall we've pushed back, CCW is approaching nationwide reciprocity, and the shenanigans of politicians are educating voters who may not have even cared before.
I'm as concerned as the next guy, but in the long run - and those of us who have been around with some perspective - things are a lot better than they were.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"What I predict is an outright ban on the use of any bottleneck cartridge in a pistol capable of firing more than one round without reloading"
Under what authority? I could just as easily predict a complete repeal or strike-down of the NFA. No reasoned argument that a bottle neck makes a round suited to rifles only or unfit for sporting use in pistols.
We cry "tyranny" a lot, but in fact the administration cannot unilaterally do whatever it wants. As seen by this whole M855 fiasco.
TCB
Under what authority? I could just as easily predict a complete repeal or strike-down of the NFA. No reasoned argument that a bottle neck makes a round suited to rifles only or unfit for sporting use in pistols.
We cry "tyranny" a lot, but in fact the administration cannot unilaterally do whatever it wants. As seen by this whole M855 fiasco.
TCB
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Eh ... The answer? "Arms" covers it all, including armor. What does the Constitution say? "Shall not be infringed,"(The Constitution for the United States of America, Second Added Article).
I don't care how many categories you divide arms into, it doesn't change the fact that the keeping and bearing of them shall not be infringed.
Categorizing them makes it easier to demonize them one category at a time. All that should be done is categorize and punish the villains who abuse them accordingly, but that won't accomplish their goal of disarming us. In fact, it would be antithetical to their goal for it would strip them of their biggest argument for disarming us. They need an "argument" since if they uttered the truth of why they want to disarm us, they'd be tarred and feathered as the revolutionaries they are.
Woody
I don't care how many categories you divide arms into, it doesn't change the fact that the keeping and bearing of them shall not be infringed.
Categorizing them makes it easier to demonize them one category at a time. All that should be done is categorize and punish the villains who abuse them accordingly, but that won't accomplish their goal of disarming us. In fact, it would be antithetical to their goal for it would strip them of their biggest argument for disarming us. They need an "argument" since if they uttered the truth of why they want to disarm us, they'd be tarred and feathered as the revolutionaries they are.
Woody
mgmorden
Member
My guess is that there will be some ATTEMPT soon to ban any pistol that fires a round that with a standard factory round will pierce body armor - ie, pistols chambered in "rifle rounds".
They'll never get the support to even hope to ban all rifle ammo (which is effectively what current proposals would do - they just don't know enough about guns to understand that).
I'm not sure they have the support for banned "rifle chambered" pistols either, but its a lot less controversial than if they start trying to ban .30-06 ammo.
The whole thing is much ado about nothing though. Just how many cops in this country have been shot with rifle rounds out of pistols? I'd bet in all of history than number is less than 5 - and quite possibly could be 0.
They'll never get the support to even hope to ban all rifle ammo (which is effectively what current proposals would do - they just don't know enough about guns to understand that).
I'm not sure they have the support for banned "rifle chambered" pistols either, but its a lot less controversial than if they start trying to ban .30-06 ammo.
The whole thing is much ado about nothing though. Just how many cops in this country have been shot with rifle rounds out of pistols? I'd bet in all of history than number is less than 5 - and quite possibly could be 0.
SilentStalker
Member
^^^See the problem is, they don't care what the actual numbers are. And, if someone questions them, you can bet your butt that there will be all kinds of phony documents created to support their claim that this is a problem when its not. However, certain people will buy whatever they are throwing out there as truth.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
I think much of this is just internet banter fodder for conspiracy theorists. One had to know, way back in 1986 when M855 was first banned and then given a exemption, that at some point in history, a semi-auto handgun may be available and the exemption as a "sporting rifle round" lost. It didn't take Obama or the current ATF...it took the availability of semi-auto handguns that fired this round to the masses. In 1986 the climate towards firearms and so called "cop-killer" bullets used in concealable semi-auto handguns was different than it is now. There was no change to the current law, only an attempt at the enforcement of a 30 year old idea. The difference in pubic opinion towards that enforecement is what changed and the real reason it did not happen. Had there been semi-auto .223 handguns readily available in 1986, M855 would have been long gone.
While there is and always has been ridiculous anti-gun legislation proposed, the lack of any major anti-gun legislation in the last few years is proof that the mindset of the general public and those they elect has changed. The fact that law abiding citizens can now carry a concealed weapon legally in all of the 50 states as opposed to those where it was legal in that same year of 1986, is also proof that gun owners are on the winning side. While the war is not over, we are not retreating any longer. We the people will determine our future, with our actions and our votes. The wearing of tin-foil hats is not necessary.
While there is and always has been ridiculous anti-gun legislation proposed, the lack of any major anti-gun legislation in the last few years is proof that the mindset of the general public and those they elect has changed. The fact that law abiding citizens can now carry a concealed weapon legally in all of the 50 states as opposed to those where it was legal in that same year of 1986, is also proof that gun owners are on the winning side. While the war is not over, we are not retreating any longer. We the people will determine our future, with our actions and our votes. The wearing of tin-foil hats is not necessary.
wally
Member
If Ted Cruz or Rand Paul could get traction, maybe there would be reason for hope!
- Status
