PDA

View Full Version : batf taking comments on potential ammo ban...


peterhodges
12-25-2012, 9:06 AM
From Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/12/24/batfe-taking-comments-on-a-pending-ban-ammo/#ixzz2G5WVPfSx


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering further restrictions for various types of ammunition used in both rifles and handguns.

The new restrictions stem from the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which among other things restricted “Armor Piercing” ammunition and also set forth exceptions that were allowed.

One such restriction banned handgun ammunition which had a composition where the materials were harder than lead.

In what appears to be yet another anti-gun initiative by the Obama administration, the BATFE is now considering reversing previous policy by banning ammunition which was originally designed for rifles but can also be used in certain handguns, such as the Thompson Contender or pistol versions of semi-automatic rifles, by claiming that some such ammunition does not meet the exception standards. At issue now is what changes the BATFE would make in further determining exceptions under the “sporting purposes” exceptions.

As BATFE documents note: “…in developing a narrow sporting purposes test, ammunition in traditional hunting calibers will become regulated.” Translated, common rifle ammunition, including steel-core ammunition, would be banned simply because a handgun happens to be chambered for that caliber – as such handguns have been for many decades.

For more information, please go directly to the website provided by the BATFE: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/

There is still time!

The BATFE has opened the issue for public comment until December 31st, 2012. That gives us less than a month to have our voices heard in this issue. Take a moment and write to the BATFE using the email address provided below and let them know your concerns as they consider future changes to the “sporting purposes” exceptions to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which very well may result in further restrictions on commonly used ammunition.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

Email The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before December 31st.
Tell the BATFE that further restrictions are not needed and would be a serious violation of our rights under the Second Amendment.
Support GRNC!: As we move closer to the national and local legislative sessions, GRNC needs your support to help combat the efforts against your rights as gun owners. Join or renew your membership! http://www.grnc.org/join-grnc/join-grnc-online

CONTACT INFO: BATFE email APAComments@atf.gov

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE:

Suggested Subject: “To the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:”

To Whom It May Concern,

It has come to my attention that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering further restrictions for various types of ammunition used in both rifles and handguns as they pertain to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. I am personally concerned that further restrictions on commonly used ammunition would represent a serious breach of the intended scope of the original limitations set forth under the laws created in the Gun Control Act.

As BATFE documents note: “…in developing a narrow sporting purposes test, ammunition in traditional hunting calibers will become regulated.” Regulated? It would be effectively banned. I will not stand idly by while bureaucrats try to ban common rifle ammunition, including steel-core ammunition, simply because a handgun happens to be chambered for that caliber – as such handguns have been for many decades.

Respectfully,

cdtx2001
12-25-2012, 9:24 AM
This is a dupe of another thread...

Still, why does ammunition have to meet "sporting purposes"? I thought our right to bear arms and therefore ammunition had nothing to do with sport.

LOW2000
12-25-2012, 9:26 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=656594

But feel free to bump it. I would have liked to see a comment on the issue from CGF since it appears it would directly impact us here in CA with our "lead-free" zones.

peterhodges
12-25-2012, 7:31 PM
Huh I looked first but did not see the original. Have to check it out...

myk
12-25-2012, 7:53 PM
Yeah I've been predicting that weapons themselves will probably be left alone, but what's to keep the opposition from making it expensive and/or difficult to feed the weapons. If they implement annual permits, heavy taxes, background checks and all of this other stuff/FUD I've been hearing, then that's going to be a problem...

speleogist
12-25-2012, 8:51 PM
This is a dupe of another thread...

Still, why does ammunition have to meet "sporting purposes"? I thought our right to bear arms and therefore ammunition had nothing to do with sport.

Because that subjective interpretation makes it easy for our friends over at the ATF to restrict gun rights.

ClarenceBoddicker
12-25-2012, 9:05 PM
Gotta love the 1986 LEOPA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/hr3132) that can be used to ban all ammo except for lead, copper and maybe plastic core. Thanks Ray-gun for banning machine guns & cheap steel core non armor piercing ammo. Mild steel core is not real armor piercing. Concealed soft body armor is not designed to stop rifle rounds.

Any rifle round can be declared to be a pistol round due to pistols on the market like the Thompson Center. Clinton ordered ATF to declare the 7.62x39mm & 7.62x51mm a handgun round due to Olympic Arms advertising a pre production AR pistol (OA-93) in 7.62x39mm. Don't remember what pistol caused 7.62x51mm to be declared a handgun round.

Wherryj
12-26-2012, 8:09 AM
Yeah I've been predicting that weapons themselves will probably be left alone, but what's to keep the opposition from making it expensive and/or difficult to feed the weapons. If they implement annual permits, heavy taxes, background checks and all of this other stuff/FUD I've been hearing, then that's going to be a problem...

Well, there is precedent. After all, don't we all have to pay yearly permits/taxes and have yearly background checks to exercise our rights of free speech and our right to protection against illegal search?