Saturday, December 8, 2012

ATF feeling froggy again. More of that Nazi-based "sporting purposes" language crap.

The framers of GCA ’68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA ’68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so. -- "Gun Control’s" Nazi Connection by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Check this out: BATFE Taking Comments on "Sporting Purposes" Exemption to "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Law Until Dec. 31
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is taking public comments on its website until December 31, with regard to how it should determine what types of projectiles meet the "sporting purposes" exception to the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law. At this time, the question centers primarily around rifle-caliber projectiles made of metals harder than lead, such as the Barnes Bullets solid brass hunting bullets.
They can pass whatever regulations they think they can enforce. We will defy them and let them try. Piss on all Nazis -- German or American, past, present and future. As far as I'm concerned, they can all talk over their mistakes later while roasting in Hell.


John Otis Comeau said...

Godwin's Law is no longer useful as the US government starts following the Nazi playbook on a daily basis. Methinks the Law of Unintended Consequences is about to supersede it.

Anonymous said...

Meh, let them pass a law to confiscate it....they can have it one round at a time. Might be moving a mite fast for recovery though.

Anonymous said...

I guess some might call it a sport, they shouldn't come if they don't want to play.....

SWIFT said...

I'm keeping it simple. I consider protecting my person,family, land and possessions, with whatever type of ammo I have, as "sporting". No one with two functioning brain cells trusts the ATF. This public comment period is nothing more than window dressing. In the end, they'll do as they damn well please. So will I!

WarriorClass III said...

There is no way, at this point, to avoid war.

Anonymous said...

BLM bans steel case/core ammo(now in effect out west)
Fish and wildlife bans led core ammo(now in effect out west)
ATF bans anything harder than lead

Anonymous said...

Worst NRA/ILA article easy link to add your comments to the ATF. The one at the bottom takes you to an ATF page that has a hundred links on it...none of which directly state commentary on 'sporting purposes' ammunition (and the constitutionality of such a fairy tale class of munitions).

Way to go NRA....I expect the ATF site to bury the comment link; and I expect you to make it easy for anyone reading to find it.

Anonymous said...

Here's my comment:

You simply have no right to regulate weapons or ammunition under the guise of "sporting uses" under the 2nd Amendment, nor do you under Miller V. US wherein the high court ruled the ONLY weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment were ones with military purposes since overthrow of tyrannical government and defense of the country were the main aims of the spite of the "sporting uses" clause that was unconstitutionally pushed through by the GCA of '68. The 2nd Amendment never was and never will be about hunting, no matter how many times that lie is repeated.

People are starting to wake up to the history of the gun control argument....and as more and more people buy firearms (as we've seen over the last 4 years) and learn these facts, the harder time you will have banning them or restricting their possession and use. Many people have simply decided your rules are just no longer relevant. Free men don't ask permission to defend themselves and their families with whatever is most expedient and efficient, as natural rights would dictate. Government does not issue any rights and the Constitution and Bill of Rights merely enumerate rights inherent to the human condition.

Kind regards,
Sean King
Mesa, AZ

Anonymous said...

BTW, here's the direct link to ATF's comment section:

Anonymous said...

Comments to ATF have to be e-mailed in and must include your Name and Address or they will be discarded according to their policies.

Apparently I missed the ban of Barnes' solid brass bullets earlier this year, but that seems to be the impetus behind this. (Technically, those and even copper solids could be considered "armor piercing" under the current law based on composition rather than actual efficacy.

The ATF says that this comment period is because they have been requested to grant this sporting purposes exception.

My guess is that Barnes requested this exception. My quick Google search didn't find any articles on the ban on their bullets since January. Those January articles promised legal action was forthcoming. However, they may have been slapped down by courts, or warned by their attorneys that they would be slapped down if they did not first seek an administrative fix to the ruling (see legal principle of ripeness of an issue for a court challenge).

If this is the case, then perhaps ATF will grant this exception and Barnes' bullets will be available again. Adding another Sporting Purposes test is not a good thing, but may take us back to the status quo of last year.

Alternatively, ATF may well use this to keep Barnes' bullets illegal and to come after other bullets.

It all depends on just how froggy they're feeling.

Anonymous said...

From Orwell's Newspeak Dept.

Keep in mind that ATF has ruled that use of a firearm in a sporting event or activity does not mean it meets the "sporting purposes" language.

See, it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

Anonymous said...

They know better than anyone how many guns are literally flyinh out of gun shops.. they wont admit it but my instinct says they're crapping in their shorts,especially considering their love/hate relationship with Americans who own firearms.
Anyone want to send them some huggies ?

Yank lll

Anonymous said...

"Yank 111", Not only that,But Obama and his collaboratively repub GOPe buddies,know darn well that Obama lost the election,not "Won" the election in a Massive landslide by Voter Fraud. Both Political Parties know the Vast Majority of the American people are against their marxist/islamist agenda.

What Obama and company are trying to do,is pull off the biggest "Poker Bluff" in History,by trying to make the American people believe he has an actual "Mandate" to Ban Firearms along with imposing the rest of statist agenda. It's all a facade and a House of cards waiting to come down. The reaction to Bob Costas little anti-Second Ammendment screed on Sunday Night Football, proved that as it was overwhelmingly negative.

Anonymous said...

I think it's quite sporting to give the tyrants an opportunity to (try) outrunning our bullets. Warrior Class is right, and I know it's been said before but I'll say it again here 'for effect':
***EVERYTHING*** we're doing right now 'is dress rehearsal for war'. It's inevitable and it will be bloody. Obama's communist brownshirts will turn out, and for all their bluster about taking weapons off the streets we all know that the feds (like F&F) have been arming the street gangs.

The NRA, their hearts may be in the right place, but those clowns have and continue to do more damage to RKBA than if they did absolutely NOTHING. They compromise and appease. Sorry, but I'll pick Gunowners of America any day of the week over NRA.
What I would like to know is where they're gonna put that 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo they intend to use to disarm us, and how many locks does one have to pick to get in there and confiscate it?

Let'em feel froggy; we'll just skin them alive and make frog legs!!

Anonymous said...

My late father-in-law was a retired 8th Air Force Warhawk/Thunderbolt/Lightning/Mustang driver. On those few times that we were able to pry anything out of him, his recounts usually included something along the lines of "that's when things started to get 'sporty'".

So.... Flying a P51-D into combat over Germany was considered "sporty" by him and his peers. Now then, using FedGov's technique of twisting the language to meet a given purpose, couldn't we say that a fighter aircraft carrying 6 M2 Brownings meets the "sporting purposes" test? ;-)