We have GOT to get a real pro-2A president that's going to reverse this crap. THEN we can work on getting rid of the sporting purpose clause!

L1A1Rocker wrote:We have GOT to get a real pro-2A president that's going to reverse this crap. THEN we can work on getting rid of the sporting purpose clause!

Yes. He can ride into office on his unicorn.

The ONLY pro 2nd POTUS we ever had was Jefferson.

My notifications showed that I was quoted by poki. For the record, I don't give a rat's ass what poki has to say:

poikilotrm, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

It appears you do, you sad little copsucker.

All it's doing is taking Ammo off the shelves that have no effect on Law Enforcement, it's probably not ever even used in crimes. Now all the Ammo hoarders are gonna buy it up and sell it for triple what they paid. It's gonna be like buying .22 long rifle

The funny part is, it's shitty ammo. M193 is superior.

Yea I can understand that, but they are all butt hurt about it having a steel core penetrator. But with ATF logic they are probably just banning it because the tips are painted green.

It is all about exerting whatever gun control they can in any way they can. The ATF is a facially unConstitutional agency with a blatantly unConstitutional mission and group culture. They are evil.

Show me where they are legally empowered in any way to restrict any type of ammo. They are in clear violation of the written law's letter and spirit.

Small changes over time add up to a larger change in long run.

The change in ruling is not really the problem. According to the law, M855 is AP ammo already. What needs to happen is the concept of "sporting purpose" needs to be ruled a unconstitutional.

So the ATF doing this would just give a Plaintiff cause to file a challenge. And if that does not happen, no big deal as M855 is terrible ammo anyway. It both costs more, and is worse, than M193 in terminal performance, ability to penetrate steel within 100 yards, and accuracy.

silencertalk wrote:The change in ruling is not really the problem. According to the law, M855 is AP ammo already. What needs to happen is the concept of "sporting purpose" needs to be ruled a unconstitutional.

So the ATF doing this would just give a Plaintiff cause to file a challenge. And if that does not happen, no big deal as M855 is terrible ammo anyway. It both costs more, and is worse, than M193 in terminal performance, ability to penetrate steel within 100 yards, and accuracy.

We had a conversation a number of years ago on the Quarterbore form regarding modern bullets that actually meet the definition of "armor piercing", but were not banned. I wonder if the modern controlled expansion bullets by Barns, and others, is next on the ban list.

L1A1Rocker wrote:We had a conversation a number of years ago on the Quarterbore form regarding modern bullets that actually meet the definition of "armor piercing", but were not banned. I wonder if the modern controlled expansion bullets by Barns, and others, is next on the ban list.

That action would lead to multiple challenges. Imagine how people would buy ammunition in the emotional state of California with the current lead ban...

Well M855 isn't the best ammo out there but the point is they are banning ammo that is commonly used. Give them and inch and they'll take a mile. What's next a Ban on FMJ?

YoungBlood wrote:

L1A1Rocker wrote:We had a conversation a number of years ago on the Quarterbore form regarding modern bullets that actually meet the definition of "armor piercing", but were not banned. I wonder if the modern controlled expansion bullets by Barns, and others, is next on the ban list.

That action would lead to multiple challenges. Imagine how people would buy ammunition in the emotional state of California with the current lead ban...

The definition of ap ammo is at 18 USC 921(a)(17):
"(B) The term `armor piercing ammunition' means-

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass,
bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and
intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.

ATF has a VERY loose "interpretation" of "intended for use in a handgun".

Also, Barns says this about their alloy: "Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone." A homogeneous alloy of copper and zinc is brass, and brass is on that list. I'm not sure what the difference between homogeneous and "homogenous" is but I suspect it is a distinction without a difference.

I just noticed this notice on the Barns site:

Attention:

Certain Barnes Banded Solids are currently under review by the ATF making them unavailable. Please Click Here to learn more.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/c ... ed-solids/

It looks like the Ban Hammer may be about to drop on Barns.

I wonder how many lead banners in that state hoped for lead free bullet restrictions. . . This talk reminds me of 1990's hearings and multiple efforts that continue to this day. If they could not ban guns from being kept then tax cost of use beyond affordable.

This is just further proof that the gun banners are winning and will probably continue to do so. Has there been a time when a republican president with republican controlled house and senate ever bothered to have any anti-gun laws (NFA, GCA '68, etc) repealed?

It's never going to happen.

How about getting those same laws ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS? I don't think that will happen either.

It would take a concerted effort that neither the NRA or anyone else is really willing to follow through with.

Heck, Bill Gates could buy the NRA. He is also anti-gun.

dsteuber wrote:This is just further proof that the gun banners are winning and will probably continue to do so. Has there been a time when a republican president with republican controlled house and senate ever bothered to have any anti-gun laws (NFA, GCA '68, etc) repealed?

It's never going to happen.

How about getting those same laws ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS? I don't think that will happen either.

It would take a concerted effort that neither the NRA or anyone else is really willing to follow through with.

Heck, Bill Gates could buy the NRA. He is also anti-gun.

There was a time when what you say would be absolutely true, but such is no longer the case. On the day the Heller decision came out I, and many others, said that this was not the end, but the beginning. And such is true.

But first I need to go back to 86. Everyone knows about the Hughes Amendment, but few seem to recall what it was an amendment to - the Firearm Owners Protection act. It did in fact roll back a number of laws, mostly, the prohibition on mail order ammo. Prior to the 86 law, you could not buy bulk ammo through the mail. The Hughes Amendment was supposed to be a poison pill to kill the Bill. But it passed with the NRA selling out Machingun owners (future owners) and backing the amended Bill.

Now with the Victory in Heller, we've been able to parley that into many victories across the states striking down many state, and local laws. The litigation work is by far not over, but we do have momentum.

Also consider the number of legislative victories there have been at state and local level. CHL is now common, silencers are going mainstream. AND, we are now seeing silencer prohibitions for hunting being rolled back. Edit: I forgot about Constitutional Carry just now taking off - like CHL did in the mid-late 80's.

We are having success. It is slow, but it is also steady. We've had decades of erosion on our 2A rights, it's going to take time to get them back, but getting them back we are.

An addendum to my last post:

I predict that we will see a big change to the legal definition of AP ammo. With the effort to "go green" and get away from lead, and the advent of modern "controlled expansion" bullets it will be inevitable at some future point. Weather it be by legislation or by litigation I do not know; but I could see a Bill named, The Environmentally friendly, and Modernization of Ammunition Act sailing through congress fairly easily.

35NCO wrote:

poikilotrm wrote: The ONLY pro 2nd POTUS we ever had was Jefferson.

What about Teddy? The libs then hated him with a passion because he was so pro-gun. He also owned many Maxim cans.

But agree, with today's political spectrum we are more likely to get a New Jersey or Massachusetts mindset type "conservative" president...that is pro-gun, but only for sporting purposes.

He was the NYPD COP. I dunno. You may be right.

There was a time when what you say would be absolutely true, but such is no longer the case. On the day the Heller decision came out I, and many others, said that this was not the end, but the beginning. And such is true.

I would absolutely love to be wrong on this issue.

I did notice that PA has reciprocity with more states for concealed carry than when I first had a permit. Although that doesn't change the fact that I have to have a permit to exercise a Constitutional right.

I can't see silencers as mainstream until they are considered simple accessories rather than Title II firearms with a $200 tax. Although, again, I've noticed that more firearms are being sold with threading at my local gun store as well as silencers being on display in the counter.

L1A1Rocker wrote:ATF has a VERY loose "interpretation" of "intended for use in a handgun".

The law says "may be used in a handgun" regarding cores. Even 50 BMG may be used in a handgun. The law never should have been allowed to pass.

silencertalk wrote:

L1A1Rocker wrote:ATF has a VERY loose "interpretation" of "intended for use in a handgun".

The law says "may be used in a handgun" regarding cores. Even 50 BMG may be used in a handgun. The law never should have been allowed to pass.

You are correct, I confused sub-chapter (i) with sub-chapter (ii). My bad.

PLEASE take just one minute of your day to email ATF about this. YOUR favorite ammo will probably be next. Let's let them know we do not support this ban.

[email protected]

It only takes a minute and it can't hurt. Thanks for your support.

35NCO wrote:

poikilotrm wrote: The ONLY pro 2nd POTUS we ever had was Jefferson.

What about Teddy? The libs then hated him with a passion because he was so pro-gun. He also owned many Maxim cans.

But agree, with today's political spectrum we are more likely to get a New Jersey or Massachusetts mindset type "conservative" president...that is pro-gun, but only for sporting purposes.

I cant think of too many more liberal presidents than Teddy Roosevelt. They called 'em progressives back then and he was the king of them. His cousin Frank maybe . he might have owned guns and like to shoot s--t with them but he was a flaming liberal in every other respect.