Lawmakers won't be silenced over Obama administration's proposed ammo ban

[JAB]

I don't own an AR or, in fact, anything in .223.  I might one day buy something chambered for the round but it is just as likely that I never will.  That said, I still hope there is enough opposition by the people who can actually stop this nonsense to keep it from passing.  The reason is, I think this is a 'tip of the iceberg' sort of test issue to see how much push back there is against banning a commonly used ammo type.

 

Didn't the late and not lamented Ted Kennedy try to get at least some 30-30 ammo banned because it apparently 'could' defeat some levels of body armor (maybe there had been one instance where a 30-30 had actually done so?)  Honestly, isn't any rifle cartridge going to be able to defeat at least the lower levels of soft armor?  If the Bureau of Arrogance, Tyranny, Fearmongering and Encroachment quietly banned one type of commonly used ammo what would stop them from banning others - like the venerable and usually 'non-threatening' 30-30?

[bersaguy]

Well, lets see.............. :shrug: ? Back years ago when bullet proof vests made of Kevlar were introduced, if I am not mistaken many of the police officers said that of all caliber weapons they feared having pointed at them was the 22 Rim fire weapon with a barrel longer then 4 inches. They said that in many tests the 22 Rim fire round would penetrate the vests. It has always been my opinion and always be my opinion that as long as companies spend millions of dollars trying to make  the perfect body armor there are just as many companies spending millions to figure out ways to defeat the newest armors on the market. That is what keeps 1000's of people employed..................jmho

[Guest tangojuliet]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/police-say-ar-15-bullet-up-for-ban-is-not-a-threat-countering-atf-white-house/article/2560964 this article is showing 235 memebers have signed 

[Mark@Sea]

Doesn't matter. As far as BATF is concerned it is a done deal. They printed the ban in their regulations book released in January, so any comment period is just a belated attempt to give it the appearance of legality.
The law exempts M855 on two separate issues anyway. At this point BATF is really just phoning it in; the agency has made it perfectly clear that they are a law unto themselves, Congress be damned.

[JWC]

well I guess the actual lawmakers have spoken.

[Oh Shoot]

Doesn't matter. As far as BATF is concerned it is a done deal. They printed the ban in their regulations book released in January, so any comment period is just a belated attempt to give it the appearance of legality.
....

 

ATF now apparently "says" that was a mistake, a "publishing error":

 

http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-atf-issues-statement-saying-paperwork-showing-m855-banned-was-publishing-error/

 

- OS

Edited March 7, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[JWC]

Publishing error haha. Lying sobs

Maybe "representatives" will write them another letter.