Wednesday, March 11, 2015

They'll be back. Fudd triumphalism aside, the ATF only promised that they “will not at this time seek to issue a final framework” implementing a proposed ban on what it’s still insisting is “armor piercing ammunition.”

There is dancing in the streets in Fudd land, for there is a plethora of articles insisting that the M855 ammo ban is dead. Fudd triumphalism aside, the ATF only promised that it “will not at this time seek to issue a final framework” implementing a proposed ban on what it’s still insisting is “armor piercing ammunition.”
Here is the official announcement.
Now there is no doubt that, as the New York Times reports, "The turnabout by the agency is a victory for Republican lawmakers and gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association, which sent out urgent alerts to its members warning them of the attempt to ban the bullets."
That the antis are reduced to mere sneering such as this is a token of the victory:
“The NRA and the corporate gun lobby gathered their blogger pals around the electronic campfire to tell eerie ghost stories about a potential gun ban, even though this was a simple rule-change proposal to protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers,” said Jonathan Hutson, chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign.
Bob Barr writes that this was "A bridge too far." That is undoubtedly true. The question is what long-term effect does it have.
But, as David Codrea observes:
While arguments are correct that M855 ball ammo does not meet ATF’s own definition of “armor piercing,” the larger point, that there is no legitimate authority to impose such criteria in the first place, is being missed. So when ATF declares they’ll be back, until such time as that usurpation is addressed and resolved, it’s prudent to believe they will be, at the first political opportunity.
Indeed, my sources tell me that the ATF backed off in order to preserve their right to regulate all ammunition, which some legislators had threatened to remove from their purview. Bet on it, they'll be back.


Anonymous said...

What an Outback Steakhouse Does for a 92-Year-Old World War II Veteran is Simply Beyond Classy.

Anonymous said...

Pill Pushers Pushing Gun Magazine Bans

TheBohunk said...

7n6 doesn't meet the ATFs own standard for AP ammo either. The irons are hot, we need to strike accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Of course they'll be back. Mike, I know you believe in keeping the "Devil you know" as opposed to the Devil you don't. But maybe, just maybe, if we could get even one alphabet agency out of our lives it could set a precedent to get others out. There's so many waiting in line to be done away with that I'm at a loss to wonder which could be next. EPA? BLM? IRS? (now there's a wishful thought). But if we don't get rid of one we'll never get rid of any.

PO'd American said...

Quote: "Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study."

Good Faith my rosey red ass; what faith are you professing here?

Anonymous said...

Theoretically, hopefully, the price for the 855 will come back down to normal. The folks who bought it at 65 or 70 cents or more per round must be feeling pretty foolish.

Backwoods Engineer said...

I pretty much said the same thing: the 'sporting purpose' criteria is still intact, they still want to use 'armor piercing' to ban all rifle ammo, and yes, they'll be back.

Anonymous said...

As some ammo has already been banned by rule - admittedly under the interest balancing approach (officer safety), the question to be posed to those legislators is why aren't they acting NOW to remove "authority" already claimed by the ATF, the exact action they said justified action pertaining to 5.56? Why is it different?

It's not. The reality here is simple. The ATF doesn't have authority to ban ammo under a "framework" to begin with AND neither does congress via legislating GCA.

Congress DOES have authority to regulate, ban and even set punishment for unlawful USES of any ammo. Say robbery, rape, murder, destruction of property and things of that nature. I'll even openly concede authority regarding hunting and even target shooting on public lands (though regulation cannot be outright ban in those instances). But as for defensive discharge, none of them have authority to punish exercise of rights. Period.

It is sad to see folks celebrate this 855 situation. We "won" nothing and frankly lost out on a opportunity to demonstrate infringement - yet that 7.62 situation remains (among a more recent ban).

Might it BE right now that NO framework is "in place" now -- as the ATF tries to retain usurped authority by keeping it out of reach of challenge?

Anonymous said...

And, if they don't get that way they'll do something else. Speaking of which, I'd be interested in a nationwide poll of the FFLs as to whether they have experienced an increase in frequency of bizarre audits by BATF. Such as, asking for copies of the book at a moments notice, or, identifying people that don't fill out 10a or do 12 correctly.

Anonymous said...

92 yr old man story? LOL I never got crap for my service nor did guys in Vietnam.

Pill pushers? They just want to minimize their legal liability when folks who take their drugs go wacko.

And the ATF? I would just make my own bullets and they would be all be armor piercing ... suck on that ATF

Millwright said...

The much-touted "pause" wasn't long. B.T. Jones (new head of BATFE) testified today, (3/12/15) "...all 5.56mm ammo poses a threat to law enforcement...". Since just about all current CF ammo is capable of defeating soft body armor, its only a matter of time until a lot popular calibers/cartridges make their way onto ATF's "armor-piercing" list. >MW