Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Legality of 5.7 x 28 ammo in California?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #31
    RickD427
    CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
    • Jan 2007
    • 9261

    Originally posted by Whiterabbit
    If that is actually true then steel core 223 is illegal per federal law, based on the common use (arguable) of AR and contender pistols in 223.

    Much less the ATF's decision that even more fits in the net, given their cease and desist letter to barnes over banded solids.

    Can you state the federal law that says that possession of AP ammo that can be fired from a handgun is illegal?

    855 could easily be argued to BE AP, as one could argue the core is the core, regardless the presence of other bullet regions. But perhaps the strongest evidence for such bullets to be AP is if they WEREN'T AP, why did the ATF specifically have to exempt them?

    Despite the controversy, we have the evidence to prove that M855 military ammo is not armor piercing status. Find the facts about M855/SS109 AP status here.


    I don't buy the reasoning in the above article as evidenced by my argument above.
    Whiterabbit,

    Please make sure that you understand the difference between California and Federal law. They're not the same with regard to armor-piercing ammunition.

    California clearly prohibits the possession of armor-piercing handgun ammunition. Please refer to Penal Code section 30315. Violation is a felony.

    The federal law concerning armor-piercing ammunition was nicely summarized by Hermosabeach in post #23. The federal law does not appear to prohibit the personal possession of AP ammunition.

    Both California and the Federal government both define AP ammunition by the manner of construction, but they do it differently. It appears possible that any particular round could AP to the feds and non-AP to California and vice-versa.

    Being compliant with California law will not clear you of a federal charge, and being compliant with the federal law will not clear you of a California charge.
    If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

    Comment

    • #32
      nitrous_bob
      Banned
      • Dec 2012
      • 251

      Originally posted by highintel
      I remember about 3 months back I heard automatic fire from a distance away near my house. I tuned into the police scanner and heard officers reporting finding a bag of armor piercing ammo near a truck for a P90 submachine gun.
      wow they are good !!!!!....they immediately realized they were from a p90 rather than a Five-seveN handgun ? and it was intended for a full auto gun rather a semi auto gun we can all own (oh well...not cali new york and mass)

      those cops deserve a raise....thats serious intelligence....what clued them in ? oh wait...probable scare tactic lol

      Comment

      • #33
        nitrous_bob
        Banned
        • Dec 2012
        • 251

        Originally posted by RickD427
        Being compliant with California law will not clear you of a federal charge, and being compliant with the federal law will not clear you of a California charge.
        thats AWESOME !!! im glad im the idiot

        Comment

        Working...
        UA-8071174-1