User Panel
Quoted:
Proposed, but if nobody makes a huge stink, they'll do it this time. No one in the executive branch is going to stop it certainly. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this official or just a proposal atm? This? There is a big difference.. Proposed, but if nobody makes a huge stink, they'll do it this time. No one in the executive branch is going to stop it certainly. I'll call my guys. I'm really tired of calling my guys, every fucking 2 weeks. |
|
|
I just don't give them my consent for this. I will treat this as most every other malum prohibitum laws.
|
|
|
Quoted:
So - this only applies to handgun ammo? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C) 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, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute So - this only applies to handgun ammo? Read the document, or at least the summary....if a round is technically armor piercing, and can be fired in any handgun other than a single shot, it falls under their new interpretation. This includes certain 5.56 because of AR15 pistols.....at least that is their intent. This is a big slippery slope is the deal. It's not panic, but it should be resisted. |
|
Quoted:
So - this only applies to handgun ammo? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C) 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, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute So - this only applies to handgun ammo? There is no requirement for the law to make sense (seriously). |
|
Quoted: Link for best deal for M855? View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Read the document, or at least the summary....if a round is technically armor piercing, and can be fired in any handgun other than a single shot, it falls under their new interpretation. This includes certain 5.56 because of AR15 pistols.....at least that is their intent. This is a big slippery slope is the deal. It's not panic, but it should be resisted. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C) 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, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute So - this only applies to handgun ammo? Read the document, or at least the summary....if a round is technically armor piercing, and can be fired in any handgun other than a single shot, it falls under their new interpretation. This includes certain 5.56 because of AR15 pistols.....at least that is their intent. This is a big slippery slope is the deal. It's not panic, but it should be resisted. Gettin' real tired of this shit. I'll read it |
|
|
The mere existence of a handgun that fires 5.56 does not make 5.56 a handgun round.
If I made a handgun that fired .50 bmg, would that make .50 bmg a motherfucking handgun round? |
|
|
Is there some triple digit IQ limit at the ATF or something?
|
|
On the one hand I don't really care. Can't shoot it at any range 'cause steel core. On the other, now I have two basic loads of potential liability.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"sporting purposes" What a crock of shit. Fuck those assholes. Im sure THEY will have plenty. Incrementalism at its finest. Assholes. That gives me an idea. Nice. For all you atf guys reading this, kindly get your faces fucked, fags. Thank you, in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow - what will this mean for existing holders of the ammo? At the state level, will this also cause issues if the state uses the BATF guidelines?
|
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Link for best deal for M855? Sigh. Hard to get excited about $169 when it was $30 cheaper not long ago, but at least they have free shipping this weekend. Ordered more. Now it's time to write letters. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"sporting purposes" What a crock of shit. Fuck those assholes. Im sure THEY will have plenty. Incrementalism at its finest. Assholes. That gives me an idea. This seems that it may help the case in a round about way. Possibly give them enough rope... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Start calling your Congress critters and demanding some action on this shit or every rifle caliber round will be next. Exactly. Do it people...please. Flood their offices with calls! |
|
Quoted:
"Some ammunition that was previously exempted as “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” specifically 5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges, will again be regulated as “armor piercing ammunition.” Except as provided by law, no person may manufacture or import such ammunition, and manufacturers or importers may not sell or deliver such ammunition. ATF will maintain the exemption for 30-06 M2AP cartridges Proposed change to ATF regulatory framework for "armor piercing" ammunition Link http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf In summary it's similar to the Sig Brace ruling...because a bad guy might use it in an AR15 pistol, it should be viewed as a non-sporting product- Intent of the user defines the potential illegality. Read the entire document and it is pretty clear that they intend to push more of this type of initiative. View Quote I could have swore that 5.56 and .30-06 were specifically exempted BY LAW, not ATF decree? So how do they plan on reclassifying it other than by "F#$% you, we say so" ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I ve been saying for years they are not coming after the guns, they are coming after the ammo. FBHO View Quote The amount of time it's going to take for really pissed off people to run out of ammo and components is far, far longer than they amount of time that will pass before their various ponzi schemes fall apart and the wheels fall off of the welfare state. Let's put it this way; they're not any more competent at disarmament than they are at making healthcare insurance exchange websites. This doesn't mean we shouldn't get pissed off... but it's not exactly something to worry about either. It's not like their intentions haven't been plain for ages. |
|
Does the U.S. Military follow munitions guidelines issued by ISIS?
|
|
Quoted:
Federal law does not forbid possession. Just manufacture or transfer. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow - what will this mean for existing holders of the ammo? At the state level, will this also cause issues if the state uses the BATF guidelines? Federal law does not forbid possession. Just manufacture or transfer. I thought it was manufacture and import. Are you saying if this BS goes into effect I can't give a case to someone? |
|
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: "sporting purposes" What a crock of shit. Fuck those assholes. Im sure THEY will have plenty. Incrementalism at its finest. Assholes. That gives me an idea. Tomorrow, I'm going to reliable all of my ammo cans that have 855 to simply "Nolo". |
|
Quoted:
I thought it was manufacture and import. Are you saying if this BS goes into effect I can't give a case to someone? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow - what will this mean for existing holders of the ammo? At the state level, will this also cause issues if the state uses the BATF guidelines? Federal law does not forbid possession. Just manufacture or transfer. I thought it was manufacture and import. Are you saying if this BS goes into effect I can't give a case to someone? I think that is transfer from a licensee to a non-licensee. Not looking at the statute right at this moment. |
|
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Link for best deal for M855? Thx just ordered a can. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.