Posted: 2/14/2015 12:31:05 PM EDT
|
What is the game plan to oppose M855 proposal ? I know this is running in GD but I don't trust GD to get anything done...I will notify my local legislators but I am hoping you can devise a better plan then just doing that. |
|
Quoted: Okay, GD has turned into a buying free-for-all ... Give me some bullet points, no pun. ML ~ This seems to actually opposite to the sig brace ruling. the sig ruling said that the manual's "intent" was for it to be used as a pistol, so if a bad guy misuses it, hats not their fault. the ss109 ruling says that it doesn't matter if the manual "intends" for the round to be used in a rifle, just the mere fact that it CAN be used in a pistol is being used as grounds to ban it. Although there have been AR pistols on the market for years.? ~For the record, the military designation for the m855 is "ball ammo" fromTM43-0001-27: "Use: Machine Gun, 5.56mm, M249E1; and Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A2. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel and unarmored targets. Description: BALL Cartridge. The cartridge is identified by a green bullet tip." and i DID NOT capitalize "BALL" for emphasis, that is how it is actually printed in the army ammo specs manual. ~ATF will maintain the exemption for 30-06 M2AP cartridges ? .... (until sig makes a pistol brace for a garand.) ~Not sure what direction to take, but the ATF just making up laws as they go or changing the definition of sporting purpose to circumvent the law...Well that seems a bit unconstitutional since this ammo has been on the market for 30years or more I think that needs to be addressed. ~We all need to stand up on this ,They're gun owners out there that are not NRA or teaparty that we need to get on board. |
|
Dear Congressman,
I am writing to voice my strong opinion to the propsed change to current law that would make it illegal to manufacture, import, or sell on the opn emarket M855/SS109 Ammunition. The claimed purpose of this change is to "protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun." As the BATFE's Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 Remington/5.56 NATO is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor, regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855/SS109 is no more of a threat to law enforcement than any other commercially available ammunition. .223 Remington is my preferred caliber of ammunition for predator and varmint control on my family's farmland is (location). Oftentimes, my famliy relies on the availability of low-cost government surplus ammunition to do so. M855/SS109 is one of the most common types of available surplus ammunition. Banning the availability of affordable surplus ammunition under the false pretense that it will keep our law enforcement officers more safe is, quite frankly, a falshood. It's worth noting that during teh debate from which the ban on armor piercing handgun ammunition was a result, it was specifically argued that rifle ammunition, whether it was fired from a handgun or a rifle, was specifically not included in that legislation. This has been argued before by elected officials, specifically Sen. Moynihan (D-NY). It's also worth noting that rifle-caliber pistols are very rarely used in violent crimes; their usage is a statistical zero for all practical purposes. This further begs the question as to why this proposed rule change is being considered and also HOW it is going to have any meaningful and positive affect. I trust you, Congressman, to lobby on my behalf as MY elected official. the BATFE, however, is not an organization comprised of elected officials. Their employees are hired and/or appointed to their positions. As such, I strongly oppose their arbitrary and wavering 'interpretation' of what is or is not legal. It has become confusing to follow their logic, as they have even contradicted their own previous 'interpretations' from 2014. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Constituent |
|
Also:
Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322 The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (enacted September 13, 1994) 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 § 921(a)(17)(B) the term 'armor piercing ammunition' means --" as armor piercing. then ammended "NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION: 5.56MM (.223) SS109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip. U.S. .30-06 M2 AP, Identified by a black coating on the projectile tip |
|
If true, the neck-beards are in trouble. ETA: "Highly lethal type of bullet"  Aren't all bullets "highly lethal" and isn't it true that any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor?
The ATF said it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework." I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet. |
|
Quoted:
If true, the neck-beards are in trouble. ETA: "Highly lethal type of bullet" Aren't all bullets "highly lethal" and isn't it true that any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor?
The ATF said it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework." I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet. Quoted:
If true, the neck-beards are in trouble. ETA: "Highly lethal type of bullet" Aren't all bullets "highly lethal" and isn't it true that any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor?
The ATF said it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework." I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet. Agreed. This is probably just a stall tactic. I think they'll wait until the Hillary email scandal really blows up and then ban whatever ammo they want while we're distracted. |
|
Quoted: If true, the neck-beards are in trouble. ETA: "Highly lethal type of bullet" Aren't all bullets "highly lethal" and isn't it true that any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor?The ATF said it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework." I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet. Quoted: If true, the neck-beards are in trouble. ETA: "Highly lethal type of bullet" Aren't all bullets "highly lethal" and isn't it true that any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor?The ATF said it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework." I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet. |
|
|