Page 1 of 1
Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:53 pm
by Mountaineer
Just read this nice little blurb today:
In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.”? The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
... Mountaineer
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:00 pm
by Pointedstick
Well... it
is armor piercing ammunition.
But then again, so are most other rifle rounds, too. The problem is the ATF's broad discretion to interpret deliberately vague statutes in whatever manner they choose. However, we do have a totally Republican-controlled congress… It would be the easiest thing in the world for them to block this and slap the ATF down by attaching an amendment for that purpose to some must-pass bill. Whether or not they do something like this will tell us how much Republicans in Congress actually care about this issue now they have the power to make things happen.
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:46 pm
by moda0306
TennPaGa wrote:
From
the ATF bulletin:
To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition”? as defined by the statute.
Given a couple of recent high-profile cop shootings (and the fervor with which people mistake the calling out of misbehavior by law enforcement with being in favor of cop killing), this was probably a great time to make such a move.
That said, a little bit of digging showed that there is a 30-day feedback period, and, like PS said, a Republican Congress could do something about it.
If they wanted.
However, my guess is that Congress perceives more job security from demagoguing and fear-mongering than actually doing their job, so nothing will happen.
Jesus, Tenn.
You have quite the political insight nowadays. Keep it up!
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:55 pm
by Mountaineer
TennPaGa wrote:
From
the ATF bulletin:
To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition”? as defined by the statute.
Given a couple of recent high-profile cop shootings (and the fervor with which people mistake the calling out of misbehavior by law enforcement with being in favor of cop killing), this was probably a great time to make such a move.
That said, a little bit of digging showed that there is a 30-day feedback period, and, like PS said, a Republican Congress could do something about it.
If they wanted.
However, my guess is that Congress perceives more job security from demagoguing and fear-mongering than actually doing their job, so nothing will happen.
From the GCA:
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition”? does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
Run of the mill 223 Ammo seems to fit the "does not include" category. I (and I'm no lawyer) think the armor piercing definition, at least from a military view, is more for tanks, armorored personnel carriers and the like rather than a short sleaved shirt. And, as PS implied, almost any rifle round will pierce a "bullet proof vest".
Thus, seems the Executive Action is a stretch. But other laws have been ignored going way back - not just this administration -, so why not this one?
... Mountaineer
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:51 pm
by Pointedstick
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:51 pm
by Pointedstick
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:58 pm
by Pointedstick
Apparently the Republicans in Congress are not completely worthless on this front after all:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blast ... le/2560867
With lightning speed, opponents of President Obama’s bid to ban a popular cartridge used in the top selling AR-15 semi-automatic rifle have won support from 40 percent of the House of Representatives, and Senate foes are also moving fast to build opposition.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, working with the National Rifle Association, has collected the signatures of 172 House members in just two days on a letter questioning the surprise proposal targeting the 5.56 M855 used by gun enthusiasts, associates told Secrets Saturday.
And in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is spearheading a new drive to collect signatures from his chamber to stop the move.
The shocking swiftness at building opposition to the proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is the latest display by many in Congress to leave Second Amendment issues alone, and it also is a testament to sportsmen and pro-gun groups like the NRA to derail the president’s gun-control efforts.
Re: Executive Authority - Too Heavy Handed?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:48 pm
by MachineGhost
Only 40%? What about the other 60%? Heh!