Wednesday, March 11, 2015

A Thought on the ATF Green Tip Ban

I know a lot of other folks have said this, but the BATFE didn't say, "we're not doing it" they said, "not now".
"plans more study"?  Hardly a no.  They went on to say,
“After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework,”
In the words of Bluto from Animal House, they're saying, "Over?  Nothing is over until we decide it is".  

What I'd like to add is that if I interpret this right, what Katie Pavlich posted last Friday says the exemption is gone now.  I don't care if they say it's an unintended "publishing error" and if they refer back to the '05 document, what's in that 2014 regulation bulletin is published law.  It means what it says and you can bet a bunch of judges would rule against it now.  The only argument we have is that regardless of that exemption, the M855/SS109 bullet doesn't meet the legal definition of armor piercing they provide in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B). 


  1. I'm going to be nit-picky here, as I believe I know what SiG meant.

    Actually, I think it should be "published regulation", not "published law", although I agree that functionally there is no difference. So many edicts from federal bureaucracy have the _weight_ of law, and we suffer equally when we are slapped with a "violation" of those regulations as we do when we violate a law.

    Color me ignorant and clueless, but I believe there should be no violation and no consequences until such time as a regulation is actually codified as law, by Congress. Unless there happens to be a legitimate, written, signed, passed and un-vetoed law stating that a federal agencies can create regulations that automatically become law.

    I will add a proviso that I will break a law if I believe it is unjust, unnecessary, or immoral. Mala prohibita can KMA.

  2. Graybeard didn't mention it here, but other bloggers have referred to the "sporting purposes" issue. I believe we are really blowing it when we respond to that straw man. It is useful to the feds to have us argue about "sporting purposes". That is simply a distraction that permits them to tweak us as if it mattered, as if it was Constitutional

    M855 should be fought on the "not armor piercing" issue first, just to make it simple and easy.

    BUT - the truth is we should actually be telling BATFE "Do not infringe". If a fender washer can be a "suppressor", if a shoestring can be an "fully-automatic firearm", then M855 and any other ammunition that permits any firearm to fulfill its purpose could be considered a firearm, and they shall not infringe upon our possession of said ammo.

    Yes, I realize that would open us to charges of being in possession of a firearm to have a single .22 long rifle round in our pocket. That is, I am told, the case if a felon, who is barred from possessing a firearm, is found in possession of any ammo, whether he has a firearm in his possession or not.

    We need to show BATFE (and DOJ) that we are holding them to the letter of the BOR. To the obvious meaning, construction, of the Second Amendment. And to refuse to comply with anything less.

  3. Scotus just ruled agencies have no duty to notify or ask for comments on rule changes.

  4. Nothing is ever over. Who said it was?

    Seriously: Point me to the person who said "Hey, they said they're not banning M855 today. The whole gun rights thing is over. Let's disband the NRA and GOA and SAF and sing kumbaya."

    Oh, wait, you can't because nobody said that.

  5. Laws and procedure are irrelevant now. They do what they think they can get away with without causing a mass uprising. See: Hillary's homebrew email server in her closet.

    They know the money, and their ability to create it out of thin air isn't limitless. They move to ban the guns and ammo that most impedes total control - vs handguns which are used in the urban killings they claim to care so much about.

    They are playing a long game of attrition. Ban guns state by state, and punish children for making a Pop-Tart look like a gun - i.e. scare, shame, and dissuade the next generation from ever considering picking one up.

    Advanced users will have already noticed the rather tight ethnic background of the most rabid gun grabbers. I'm sure the more astute Russians did a century ago as well.

  6. What part of "shall not be infringed do these people not understand" If a regulation or law does not follow the standard of the Constitution, I do not follow it. Quit being a sheep and stand up for your rights.