Quoted:
This is absolutely freaking mindblowing to read!!! One of the guys, not to mention his employees, family and company, that has a lot to lose has not even tried to contact the people who could get this rectified and changed?!?! If my livelihood was on the line as well as many others, I would be on the phone everyday to try and track down who I needed to speak to so this situation gets rectified.

It seems that he is hoping everyone else will do all the work to put pressure on this to get it reversed.  

Quoted:
I'll add this link to the discussion.http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1366951&page=8 this is a guy who apparently acquired some of the said brass in question and is awaiting a response as of "As of 11:30am PDT, 3/16/09", regarding the new issue at hand. The same people that order the DOD to do stuff, can also order them to not mention anything about the person who ordered the change. It works both ways.

Jeremy

Quoted:
You might want to consider this as breaking news...

I don't post a lot around here and most of you have no idea who I am.  Fact is, I'm an IT guy.  A regular, run-of-the-mill computer jockey.  But I happen to work for DOD Surplus/Government Liquidation. I've been told by my CEO that as of this morning the requirement to mutilate expended brass has been lift by virtue of a reclassification from Demil B to Demil Q.  This applies to all calibers .50 and under.  I'm still trying to get confirmation that .50 cal is included in the "safe to sell" list, or whether mutilation is still required.

I'm busy at work right now, but I will try to post back with more detail and updates when I get the chance.

Ed

Quoted:
You might want to consider this as breaking news...

I don't post a lot around here and most of you have no idea who I am.  Fact is, I'm an IT guy.  A regular, run-of-the-mill computer jockey.  But I happen to work for DOD Surplus/Government Liquidation. I've been told by my CEO that as of this morning the requirement to mutilate expended brass has been lift by virtue of a reclassification from Demil B to Demil Q.  This applies to all calibers .50 and under.  I'm still trying to get confirmation that .50 cal is included in the "safe to sell" list, or whether mutilation is still required.

I'm busy at work right now, but I will try to post back with more detail and updates when I get the chance.

Ed

Quoted:
You might want to consider this as breaking news...

I don't post a lot around here and most of you have no idea who I am.  Fact is, I'm an IT guy.  A regular, run-of-the-mill computer jockey.  But I happen to work for DOD Surplus/Government Liquidation. I've been told by my CEO that as of this morning the requirement to mutilate expended brass has been lift by virtue of a reclassification from Demil B to Demil Q.  This applies to all calibers .50 and under.  I'm still trying to get confirmation that .50 cal is included in the "safe to sell" list, or whether mutilation is still required.

I'm busy at work right now, but I will try to post back with more detail and updates when I get the chance.

Ed

Quoted:
This was changed solely on the grounds of how much stink was raised by everyone in forums like this who bitched, moaned, and griped about it, and those who called, wrote, and emailed the representatives and anyone else who would listen.  The DLA was not going to listen to the CEO of our company, alone, as the only voice of protest.

I'm not at liberty to post anything official –– I'm not that important and I'm not at that pay grade.  There will be another follow up email (likely today) to all subscribers of the newsletter from our website that started this whole ordeal.  

Ed

Quoted:
I have E-mailed my Representative and Senators on this Issue. Does anyone know If the NRA is doing anything about this?

Thank you for your email.

We are aware of the de-mil brass issue and have been in contact with officials at DOD regarding this matter and are working to get it resolved.

Please check our website www.nraila.org or contact us directly via email or 800-392-8683 for future updates.

Sincerely,

Krista Cupp
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

Quoted:
This was changed solely on the grounds of how much stink was raised by everyone in forums like this who bitched, moaned, and griped about it, and those who called, wrote, and emailed the representatives and anyone else who would listen.  The DLA was not going to listen to the CEO of our company, alone, as the only voice of protest.

I'm not at liberty to post anything official –– I'm not that important and I'm not at that pay grade.  There will be another follow up email (likely today) to all subscribers of the newsletter from our website that started this whole ordeal.  

Ed

Quoted:



Huh?

No such order on ammo cans out there that I am aware of.

Who told you that?

Quoted:
Chalk one small WIN! up for the little guys.

Quoted:

Don't count our chickens before they're hatched.

Keep the pressure on until we have verifiable confirmation. Press them from every angle.

Since police departments and local governments are affected by this, it's worthwhile to lean on governors, mayors, and sheriffs, and to bring this to the attention of armorers. Stress the financial idiocy of this government waste. If you're talking to a Democrat Comrade, gently but firmly point out that failure to rectify this situation and guarantee our access to non-mutilated expended brass is proof positive that the Party intends to nullify the Constitution by any means necessary, including coercive "price signals."

Quoted:



Some would have called our reaction "knee-jerk", but I think it sends a signal that this will not stand!

Sitting around waiting for official word is equal to giving up.

Quoted:

Maybe add something to the OP title that the breaking news is unconfirmed?

Quoted:



You do not know me well. I never do that, but I felt like after all the bad news, that maybe this was a bright spot of good news for a change.

Quoted:
This supposedly came from Senator Lindsey Graham's office today:

[snip]

Quoted:
This supposedly came from Senator Lindsey Graham's office today:

Below is what Senator Graham's office has found.

They are monitoring the waiver request closely and should know something in the next 2-3 weeks.

As you know, this would be a big problem for law enforcement agencies with
low budgets (most of them) and recreational shooters who depend on expended
military brass for reloading if the waiver is not granted. There is no
"security risk" for selling used brass in bulk. It was probably just a
short-sighted bureaucratic move that did not foresee the unintended
consequences.

Military property is subject to certain coding, according to its type and
use, whether it can be sold commercially and, if so, under what
restrictions.

According to the sales division of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Service (DRMS), fired small arms cartridge cases, until recently, were DEMIL
(demilitarization) Code E, meaning that they could not be sold unless
destroyed. However, a waiver to the destruction requirement allowed the
cases to be sold intact, within the United States, but not for export.

Property given DEMIL Code B could be sold as well, under some restrictions.
However, in the last days of the Bush Administration, Under-Secretary Bell
issued a policy letter prohibiting the sale of Code B property. A waiver
could be obtained, to allow the sale of Code B property if destroyed in a
prescribed manner. At the time, this was irrelevant to the question of small
arms cartridge cases, because they were still Code E.

Recently, however, the Demilitarization Coding Management Office within the
DRMS recommended that small arms cartridge cases be given Code B. This
recommendation was accepted. Therefore, currently, fired military small arms
cartridge cases are Code B property that may be sold only if destroyed.

However, the sales division of DRMS, recognizing the impact that this new
policy will have on small businesses who sell loaded ammunition utilizing
these fired cases, and upon gun owners who purchase such ammunition at
considerable cost savings, has suspended the collection of fired cartridge
cases from military bases, to prevent their destruction. And, they will be
petitioning for a waiver, to allow the sale of intact cartridge cases .50
caliber and below. They are not asking for a waiver for larger cases, which
are purchased as souvenir type items –– artillery shells, for example. They
anticipate that within the next 2-3 weeks, the waiver will be approved.

Quoted:




This looks like a step in the right direction, but wouldn't it be better just to have brass reclassified entirely? Being sold under a "waiver" just sounds so... ephemeral.



Now for a question from someone (me) who knows virtually nothing about the technicalities in play here: Does the waiver apply to all once-fired brass, or does the waiver apply only to certain purchasers (i.e., does each purchaser have to get his own waiver)?

Quoted:
Let's hope this stays slightly under the radar, we don't want nobama to keep the ban there.

TXL

Quoted:
Let's hope this stays slightly under the radar, we don't want nobama to keep the ban there.

TXL

Quoted:


I am still remaining highly suspicous...........but this situation is looking.........better and better!

Quoted:


I'm tired of gun owners staying slightly under the radar, hoping to avoid getting stepped on.  That hasn't worked.

We need to make sure that EVERYONE knows we are paying attention and will fight every restriction they send our way.

Recently, however, the Demilitarization Coding Management Office within the
DRMS recommended that small arms cartridge cases be given Code B. This
recommendation was accepted. Therefore, currently, fired military small arms
cartridge cases are Code B property that may be sold only if destroyed.

Quoted:


The above quoted information suggests that we now have a thread to pull on to find out who and what was behind this change.  

Why did DCMO recommend the change to a code that drastically altered what could be done with the cartridge casings compared with historical practices?

At whose behest?

This page says that the coding of a particular kind of thing can be "challenged" –– thus, it had to be a specific challenge from SOMEONE that got brass casings reclassified:  http://www.drms.dla.mil/pubaff/html/demil.html  

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest it was either someone in the executive branch (most likely department of justice), or a very liberal congress critter.

Because the challenge had to have been specific to the brass, that really makes it more likely this was an intentional thing done to hit at our interests.

Quoted:


The above quoted information suggests that we now have a thread to pull on to find out who and what was behind this change.  

Why did DCMO recommend the change to a code that drastically altered what could be done with the cartridge casings compared with historical practices?

At whose behest?

This page says that the coding of a particular kind of thing can be "challenged" –– thus, it had to be a specific challenge from SOMEONE that got brass casings reclassified:  http://www.drms.dla.mil/pubaff/html/demil.html  

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest it was either someone in the executive branch (most likely department of justice), or a very liberal congress critter.

Because the challenge had to have been specific to the brass, that really makes it more likely this was an intentional thing done to hit at our interests.