Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 173

Thread: BATFE Intends to Revoke M855 AP Ammo Exemption

  1. #21
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by Malamute View Post
    Part of the retarded aspect of this, wasnt the entire "armor piercing ammo" thing supposed to be about being able to penetrate soft body armor?

    ...and wont just about any high velocity hunting rifle caliber or load do that? The 855 ammo type ban makes no sense in that regard, it doesnt make any practical difference in regards to the supposed reason for the armor piercing ammo restrictions.

    I just realized I was trying to apply common sense. Sorry.
    Ah, but to ban a thing, you have to define that thing you are banning. If I say "shotguns are illegal", I have to define what a "shotgun" is. (In Indiana, that would be covered by IC 35-47-1-11.)

    So, this law intended to ban "armor piercing handgun ammunition", but it had to define exactly what "armor piercing handgun ammunition" was. Like it or not, they picked a definition that was "ammunition that can be fired from a handgun that is made out of thus and such materials". If there were no .223 pistols, we couldn't be having this discussion because everybody and their brother knows that rifle rounds go through body armor. However...

    The solution, of course, is to repeal the damn law. (Unless joshs or someone thinks it has a hope in hell of getting shot down as overbroad in court.)
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Per BATFE's explanatory note - originally the law meant to ban AP ammunition "designed" for use in a handgun. The bills sponsor understood that rifle ammo could penetrate body armor and didn't intend the bill to cover it. How it got passed in its current state I don't know.

    The whole issue could be fixed easily by going back to the bill's original language.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by TR675 View Post
    Per BATFE's explanatory note - originally the law meant to ban AP ammunition "designed" for use in a handgun. The bills sponsor understood that rifle ammo could penetrate body armor and didn't intend the bill to cover it. How it got passed in its current state I don't know.

    The whole issue could be fixed easily by going back to the bill's original language.
    *turns on Alan Gura signal*
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by TR675 View Post
    Per BATFE's explanatory note - originally the law meant to ban AP ammunition "designed" for use in a handgun. The bills sponsor understood that rifle ammo could penetrate body armor and didn't intend the bill to cover it. How it got passed in its current state I don't know.

    The whole issue could be fixed easily by going back to the bill's original language.
    The original language covered ammo "designed" for a handgun and capable of penetrating armor. Obviously, this was before my time, since I was only one when the ban passed, but the thought was that the original language gave way to much discretion to BATF to determine what ammo was "designed" for a handgun. Obviously, all "rifle" rounds met the capability test.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter Tamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In free-range, non-GMO, organic, fair trade Broad Ripple, IN
    Well, I've lit the Bat Signal as best I could.
    Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.

    I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara View Post
    Well, I've lit the Bat Signal as best I could.
    Thank you. I mean it.
    #RESIST

  7. #27
    Site Supporter hufnagel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ 07922
    today just got really expensive.
    Rules to live by: 1. Eat meat, 2. Shoot guns, 3. Fire, 4. Gasoline, 5. Make juniors
    TDA: Learn it. Live it. Love it.... Read these: People Management Triggers 1, 2, 3
    If anyone sees a broken image of mine, please PM me.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
    God, this is infuriating. Back door gun control.
    Yes sir you are correct.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Nothing is better for gun and ammo makers, than a little government induced gun buying panic.

    I wonder how much of this is typical run of the mill ATF business that's getting exploited. It's a government agency that's in the business of regulating guns, how many times has this happened before and it just wasn't on the gun blog-o-sphere's radar?

    Then I wonder if this is a warning shot across the bow or retaliation for Sig Brace business that has been going on. The squeaky wheel squeaked a little to loud and now everyone gets slathered in grease.

    Or it could all be political posturing. The Dems could be giving the Republicans an issue to put their foot down and make a stand over, and in return the Republicans give a little ground on something else and get a little leeway from their constituents. We're just a bunch of chumps playing into the game.
    Last edited by Paul; 02-14-2015 at 09:22 PM.

  10. #30

    BATFE Intends to Revoke M855 AP Ammo Exemption

    Watched SGAmmo today... Think i saw them move, at least, 80 cases of .223/5.56 (probably closer to 100 over a 24 hour period, if i had to guess). I snagged one for an upcoming rifle class (not sure how long this will last, so planning ahead)

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •