Ammo Ban?
 

Hope this not posted elsewhere. A little late but the game players waited till the holiday to sneak attack! But for those who write their congress:

http://http://www.ammoland.com/2012/...#axzz2GBQFVre7

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.

How is there still time to provide comments before 31 Dec 12?

TR

Yes. Happy New Year!

Only reason I posted so those of us who write our congress may do so and stop this before it goes further.

I hear congress stopped the shotgun ban ATF tried to pull.

Worth a try?

It seems the administration believes it can do what it will with ammunition as it wasn't mentioned in the second amendment.

I believe that is an argument that will/should fail. It's belief that the founding fathers wanted the citizen the right to own and bear arms but not the ability to use them. It's like a law that would allow the consumption of beverages but make liquids illegal and regulate containers to remain sealed closed.

It would be as foolish as stating the right to bear arms didn't actually describe firearms. The intent is clearly weapons including firearms and the ability to own and use them, including load and fire them.

I'll be making comms with my representatives.

Or like a law passing that makes it legal to smoke and hold marijuana in quantities less than an ounce, but still makes it illegal to sell or grow it?

Or like repealing DADT, but not changing any of the regulations within the DoD so that same sex couples receive no benefits like there heterosexual counter parts?

Another potential problem is that the EPA will mandate the manufacture and use of 'Lead Free' ammunition.

At the same time the BATF is trying to ban any ammunition harder than lead.

What will be left, if anything?

TR

It would definitely put a damper on things....but if there is a market and a will, someone will find a way to get around it.

I am with you on that......I am Paslode, if you think it is bad I believe it is at least 10x worse and I can dream up a multitude of far fetched bad endings. My Mother refers to it as 'Borrowing Trouble' and me as being a 'Worry Wort'.

I hope for the best, prepare for the worst and never quit trying.

I'm with Brush on this one. All they need to do is pass a law. By the time all the challenges work their way thru the courts, the final decision will be a moot point. The damage will already have been done and the objective achieved.

Indeed
 

I agree, with one swoop of the pen they can legislate all the gun owners who refuse to disarm into criminals.

Nothing wrong with that.

While we have what may be defined as firearm freedom (in relation to other commonwealth members) here north of the border, being federally licensed is exactly the elephant that you describe.

If your license expires? Felony possession.
If they decide to automatically create a disarmament brigade? "One" fell swoop (that passes) making licenses null and void can land you the same.

The purpose of a license is to find out who owns guns and where. A slippery slope indeed leading to an attempt of confiscation. This is a classic case of the frog in the pot of water where one degree at a time will lead to him boiling without knowing it until it is too late. Create the problem, demonstrate the problem, solve the problem.