BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo (M855/SS109)

[Arcadiasix]

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.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo

[Duckhunter935]

1. Guess I will have stock up on

some surplus. I can see it going way up in price.

[demwing]

2. "AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service"

On Sat Feb 14, 2015, 08:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Guess I will have stock up on
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=160813

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Here at DU, we don't stock up on banned cop killer bullets, nor do we advocate others doing so.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 14, 2015, 08:28 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I hate crazed gun fetishists as much as any sane, rational person. But this is not worth hiding.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let it stand, for two reasons:
1. The person who sent the alert wrote: "Here at DU, we don't stock up on banned cop killer bullets, nor do we advocate others doing so." (Really? Clearly some DUers want the freedom to talk about it, so maybe DUers-collectively-are a little different than what you thought?. I would not hide a post based solely on the fact that I disagree with the post's subject, and I believe that censorship is as dangerous, in it's way, as gun worship.)
2. DuckHunter should be seen for what she/he is...a fate far better for DU, and far worse for DuckHunter

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My how self-righteous this alerter is.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No violation of TOS. Plus posted in the appropriate Group
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: idiot alerts again!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I posted the results, because I wanted you to know that while I was turned off by your post, I was more so by the alert.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Wow, thanks

Interesting as I do not hunt but target shoot and surplus ammo is usually cheap to purchase in bulk and does not go bad.

[demwing]

20. Don't thank me

I support unregulated speech, not unregulated weapons

[Duckhunter935]

25. Same here

weapons are heavily regulated. I do not support feel good laws that do nothing.

[ileus]

8. you made someone have a sadon.

[spin]

12. It's only logical that people who own .223 caliber firearms would want to stock up on ammo. ...

Of course gun owners will worry that different calibers of ammo will be banned in the future so they will rush out to purchase all the ammo they can get. The ammo shelves of gun stores will be empty and if you want to buy some, you will have to get on a waiting list.

Many gun owners have the equipment to reload ammo and will stock up on powder and primers.

It seems that gun control advocates have decided that if you can't ban guns the next step is to stop the manufacture of ammo. The problem with this is that there are billions and billions of rounds in civilian hands already and if properly stored it can last decades and decades.

There are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation. They and voting age members of their families who use the owner's firearms will go to the polls and vote against any and all Democrats as they view the Democratic Party as the Gun Control Party. Their vote may make the difference in close races at the local, state and national levels. Many gun owners have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and enjoy target shooting and hunting. That provides a large incentive to go to the polls. People who dislike firearms have no money invested in them. Therefore they have less incentive to show up at the polls to vote for a politician who supports strong gun control.

I can't figure out the logic behind alienating such a large block of voters.

[demwing]

21. What if there were 80,000,000 racists?

would you accept racism, and fail to see the logic behind alienating such a large block of voters?






'

[Duckhunter935]

26. not even close

Firearms are legal and regulated. There is and has been established an individual RIGHT to own one within limits if you are not prohibited.

Even President Obama and the Democratic platform say this.

Nice try but fail

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. What if...

...anything as irrelevant as that appeared as an argument for or against Joe Stalin, B. Obama, fluoridated water, solar power, my old shoes...

[VScott]

14. Wow! That's easily the lamest alert I've ever seen...

and that's saying something.

It just reeks of bitterness, spite and frustration.

Whomever sent it has some deep rooted anger issues.

[DonP]

18. "Cop Killer Bullets" you need a new calendar it's not 1992 anymore

Haven't heard that one for quite a while. Thought the "grabber/whiners" gave up on that one back when the Brady Group mattered?

But doesn't this pose an issue for our military?

The SS109 is commonly issued ammunition for all of our troops.

The use of this "armor piercing" ammunition, according to the brain trust at the BATFE, for anti personnel use is a violation of the Geneva Convention, just like Hollow Points are banned.

So has the BATFE declared the US military is in violation with this declaration?

[Adrahil]

44. FYI...

.... The limits on ammunition types are in The Hague Conventions, not the Geneva Conventions.

Also, the limitations are ridiculous. You can't shoot someone with a hollow point bullet, but it's perfectly okay to blow their leg off with a grenade.... Odd.

[DonP]

47. I appreciate the correction, so we're violating the Hague agreements?

[Adrahil]

48. Not really... the U.S.never signed those sections, though we generally adhere to them.

AS far as I'm aware, we don't actually use any projectiles in violation of that section. But those sections were based on some misunderstanding about weapon ballistics and how wounds happen. But it seems silly to ban,say, a hollow point bullet, but a larger caliber bullet is just fine. It's odd.

Especially since our police use those same bullets, and they are readily available to civilians.

[DonP]

49. Can't use a 9mm JHP but a 50 BMG is just fine - go figure NT

[Adrahil]

51. heh... yup. n/t

[gejohnston]

4. here is ATF's version

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
I think the handguns they refer to are AR type "pistols".

No, they didn't change their position on firing a shouldered pistol. They simply clarified their position on a brace for AR type "pistols".

[Duckhunter935]

5. Thanks, looks like a good read

[mwrguy]

6. Good

[appal_jack]

17. What, exactly, is good here?

Do you favor Democrats alienating more voters? Because that's exactly what this executive action does.

Or maybe you favor sorting ammunition becoming more expensive to regular shooters? Because M855 is nothing special in accuracy, or deadliness, or any other attribute. It's just cheaper than much of the other 5.56 62 grain ammunition out there. Lately, it had fallen below $0.40 per round, and was projected to get cheaper. Why do you oppose this?

This is a lame decision, and helps set the stage for an anti-Democratic campaign in 2016. I despise this ATF proposal.

-app

[mwrguy]

22. Less cheap ammo on the street = fewer dead kids with bullet holes in them

[gejohnston]

23. given the profits of the drug trade

it is just a cost of "doing business". Besides, their ammo isn't going up. If it does, they will just pass the cost to bong owners.

[Duckhunter935]

27. how often is this type of ammo used

to kill those kids as opposed to the number of times it is used for legal purposes? I guess we should ban cars because they have been missused in small amounts.

Rifles are used very seldom in any crime. Would you not be better to support a ban on handgun ammo?

[benEzra]

42. Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
[font color="red"]Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)[/font][/font]

Of that, only a tiny percentage (if any!) involve M855. And of course rifle homicides have fallen precipitously since 2005. From FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Tables 20:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285

This proposal seeks to outlaw inexpensive surplus target ammo used heavily by competitive shooters and almost never by criminals. It is less lethal than any civilian .223 load you can buy at Walmart, even the cheapest $5/box FMJ.

Anyone fighting to outlaw practice ammo for the most popular target rifles in America (not just AR's, but all .223's) doesn't give a crap about "saving lives", because you are going directly after lawful target shooting with this.

Edited to add: The "saving cops' lives" angle is also BS. NIJ Level IIIA body armor will not stop rifle calibers, period. NIJ Level III body armor, if up to spec, should stop any ball ammo up to .308/7.62x51mm, including .223 M855 which is non-AP ball (.223 AP is M995 and is already restricted). NIJ Level IV body armor will stop all AP rifle rounds up to .30-06 M2 tungsten core (7.62x63mm). So this isn't about saving anyone's life; it's about sticking it to people whose life choices you disagree with.

[Adrahil]

45. This type of ammo....

Is not particularly "cheap." There are lots of .223/5.56mm ammo that is cheaper. And this ammo is no deadlier than any other type in 99% of shooting situations.

[Historic NY]

32. RIF its action by the ATF no the POTUS....

you know the agency that regulates this stuff.

[appal_jack]

33. The ATF is part of the executive branch. Civics is fundamental too. nt

[bluedigger]

7. You don't really think I'm going to an NRA website, do you?

[ileus]

9. Glad I have a pretty good plinking stock of 556 already.

What a bunch of backdoor bullshit.....danger! Danger! Never mind not really.


Good way to ramp up the ammo hording again.

[Adrahil]

46. Meh. M855 is a mediocre cartridge anyway

[krispos42]

10. But remember, it's crazy and paranoid to think that Obama will move on guns.

<snip>

Don't you get it? Obama's been playing the long game. He put on hold all his devious machinations to walk into your home and rip the rifle from you cold, dead hand. Sure, he's never actually talked about doing that or done anything at all other than suggest a few minor regulations that wouldn't affect the vast majority of gun owners.

<more>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160094

So the gun-control people simultanously are lobbying for MORE gun regulation that effectively sharply lowers the number of privately-owned guns in the country, while at the same time saying that worrying about it happening is paranoid foolishness.

This means that a) they know it's a waste of time, money, and political capital, or b) they are "coming for your guns" and are establishing both the political logistics and the media campaigns to do so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "So the gun-control people simultanously..."

The words "duplicity," "lying" and "obfuscating" come to mind.

[VScott]

13. Checked 3 of my online, go to ammo vendors and they're sold out.

And I don't even shoot the stuff.

No doubt it will be plentiful at gun shows, Gun Brokers, Arms List etc, at 3x-4x normal price.

[Taitertots]

15. Oh great. Costs us votes and does almost nothing to reduce crime

[mog75]

19. crime has nothing to do with it.

If the radical left fringe of our party was interested in reducing the "gun violence" statistics they love to quote they'd be donating to suicide hotlines instead of gun control . Crime has nothing to do with it.

[ileus]

30. they rely on the suicide #'s to bolster their approval.

That's their "gotcha" card they play on the ignorant.

[Duckhunter935]

31. yes it is

they have to be but it does not seem to work with the educated on the issue.

[kcci]

16. The most common type of ammo for the most popular caliber.

Used in the most popular rifle.
Unbelievable.
The coastal wing of the part is just dead-set on making the Democratic Party a regional party.

[pablo_marmol]

24. "The coastal wing of the part is just dead-set on making the Democratic Party a regional party."

No kidding.

I need to stay away from this forum, I think. I just end up feeling extremely depressed by the extreme stupidity.

[spin]

37. The question is if it is wise to piss off such a large group of voters as gun owners. ...

There are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and you have to understand that the voting age members of the owner's families also often support firearm rights.

According to a Gallup poll in January of this year; 29% of the voter call themselves Republicans, 28% Democrat and 42% call themselves Independents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

A Gallup poll from 2005 found that 41% of Republicans are gun owners followed by 27% of Independents and 23% of Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Of course not every eligible voter goes to the polls to vote. In 2012, the last Presidential election only 57.5% bothered.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/2012-voter-turnout/

At this time it looks like Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately she is not a great campaigner like Obama. She will need every vote she can get. '

Gun owners are known to show up at the polls and vote especially when the fear their gun rights are threatened. Since the Democratic Party is once again known as the Gun Control Party they will vote against Democrats.

To me it makes little or no sense to ban a popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in our nation. That action is going to make no difference in reducing gun violence or mass murders. However it may put a Republican in the Oval Office if the 2016 race is close.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. But maybe some folks believe...

...80,000,000 are racists...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160812#post21

[spin]

39. Some people still think the world is flat. ...

Of course there is racism in our nation. There's even reverse racism although it often isn't discussed.

A percentage of Democrats are racist and a percentage of Republicans and Independents are racist.

Obviously a percentage of gun owners are also racist. But just as all Democrats or all Republicans are not racist, all gun owners are not racist.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. I agree but some folks seem to hold a contrary opinion

Just thought I'd mention it, but it makes no sense to me.

[spin]

41. Nor to me either.

[pablo_marmol]

43. Precisely what I was thinking, spin.

Interesting that universal background checks, one of the "gun control" measures with at least some hope of reducing gun violence somewhat is not on the party platform, and "the gun show loophole" and "assault weapons" -- two absolutely worthless measures are!



The stupid -- it BURNS!

Edited to add:

To me it makes little or no sense to ban a popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in our nation.

Exactly spin -- and here's the nature of the political damage......it comes across as culture war. Just like attacks on non-existent loopholes and "assault weapons". And that's what our side just doesn't seem like it will ever understand. When a political party puts forth useless legislation that is obviously culture war motivated, it doesn't just agitate the opposition -- it enrages it. And the blowback is horrendous.

[chemp]

28. Rampant paranoia from the NRA

I did a quick google search and found nothing but right wing rant sites quoting the fear driven NRA page, an NRA page that is filled with "sources say", and "is thinking about", "planning to", and "discussing".

This is just pure bullshit, IMHO.

I don't own an AR, don't plan to own an AR, and have little to no horse in this race. Just calling bullshit on the right wing noise machine.

Thank you

[gejohnston]

34. I first read about it

in a couple of gun blogs that provided the link to the ATF white paper.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/foghorn/atf-moves-ban-m855-ss109-5-56-ammunition/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/14/batfe-proposing-ban-common-ar-15-ammo-m855/
Both of these link to this ATF post:
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

I was also skeptical until I saw it there.
Do you own something like a Ruger Mini-14, any bolt action, or even single shot in .223? If so, it will affect you.

[Duckhunter935]

35. The other group is requesting for us to send comments

into the ATF

I have taken them up and sent my comments that I am against this re designation of this popular ammunition that is used for sporting purposes.

[mog75]

36. I will send one tonight.

Thanks for the heads up.

[sir pball]

50. Meh, it's overpriced crap anyway IMO

I ran SS109 surp and Wolf 62gr when I had my Mini-14, out of curiosity I put a few dozen of each through my bolt-action Savage that runs a tick under .5MOA with handloads (SMK 69s). The wolf was significantly better, IIRC it hovered around 3MOA while the SS109 was pressed to break 4. Neither is gonna win any awards, and it might have been a bad lot, but if I had a semi 5.56 to feed I'd stick with the still-plentifully-available Russian stuff.

Anyway, this is a "reasonable" (i.e. internally consistent) ruling if you actually read the framework — AR-pattern pistols weren't available when it was initially exempted and they are now, same reason we can't get 7.62 AP (thanks, XP100); if ya don't like that outcome the framework not only cites the relevant law but even admits it's kind of foolish to go with the "can be used in a handgun" criteria vs. "commonly used in a handgun" criteria...you can always try and get the law changed.