Tweet
Just read this... Recoil Magazine online article copied and pasted
They're saying as of right now the ATF has decided not to ban the M855...that's not entirely accurate, and it doesn't change the tom******y that went on.
Today the ATF said in a statement it would not seek to issue final guidelines at this time (link below). They advise they will wait until the end of the comment period and then evaluate those comments before "Proceeding with any framework."
Well, WTF does that mean? Weren't they supposed to do that anyway?
Here's a few words from our favorite bearded gun-slinging attorney. You need to read it and understand what's going on. This isn't the last time they're going to try some lawless **** like this - though the next time might be a little more sneaky...unless that's what they're doing now. Mad Duo
M855_BAN_1
ATF and Alphabet Soup…Lessons In Plain Meaning
Do you recall sitting in English class during high school to hear other students and the teacher debate the deeper meaning of a passage? I do. It would seem that some of these individuals and scholars spent abhorrent amounts of time searching for alternate meaning to a rather simple sentence. Perhaps to create the illusion they were smarter than they actually were or perhaps to change the meaning of what was quite literally “the carpet was red.”
It would seem that ATF had taken the same kind of approach in classifying SS109/M855 “green tip” as armor piercing in the mid 80’s. After a lot of searching and the help of some industry friends, I was able to locate the original determination letter which exempted green tip ammunition from being classified as armor piercing.
At the time the exemption was granted, armor piercing was defined as:
a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. Such term does not include … a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes…
As half the internet has now gone to their basement with a hacksaw, torch or other implement to perform surgery on one of these projectiles to find out what it is really composed of, it should be no surprise that the round is not armor piercing by definition. But how did ATF view it?
ATF in its determination said:
Examination of the SS109 (M855 Ball) ammunition indicates that the projectile is constructed using a full metal jacket and projectile cores constructed of a steel penetrator located forward of a lead core. Based on its construction, the SS109/ M855 projectile meets the above definition of armor piercing ammunition.
How could that be? The projectile itself is not made out of one of the enumerated materials, so that only leaves the core. As ATF has developed an affinity in utilizing dictionaries to define terms, such as “redesign” in their Sig Arm Brace open letter, it is only fair that the favor is returned.
M855_BAN_3jpg
Dictionary.com defines “core” as a noun meaning “the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.”As the construct of the projectile is a copper jacket, steel penetrator and lead core, weighing roughly 20 grains, 10 grains and 32 grains respectively, it would seem unlikely that the steel penetrator could be considered the core. That is, unless you were to engage in some outlandish analysis to arrive at that conclusion, much like my high school English experiences.
OP-BBC-Ad486x60
It would seem as I’ve been arguing all along, ATF never had the authority to regulate SS109/M855 from the beginning. It, by definition, does not fit within the criteria that Congress set out.
If you haven’t submitted a comment there is still time. And while the M855 issue is obviously on the forefront of everyone’s minds; be sure to look at the proposed framework. It is a dangerous proposition with far reaching implications that will come back to hurt us as a community if it is not addressed. The more individuals looking at what is proposed, thinking about it and writing responses as to how it would negatively affect the firearms community, the better.
Do You Even Liberty 4
Submit your comment by March 16, 2015. You can do so in one of three ways:
ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Here's that ATF advisory: http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...framework.html
Comms Plan
Primary: Subscribe to our newsletter here or get the RSS feed.
Alternate: Join us on Facebook here or check us out on Instagram here.
Contingency: Exercise your inner perv with us on Tumblr here, follow us on Twitter here or connect on Google + here.
Emergency: Activate firefly, deploy green (or brown) star cluster, get your wank sock out of your ruck and stand by 'til we come get you.
images_mad_duo_Over_Duo
They're saying as of right now the ATF has decided not to ban the M855...that's not entirely accurate, and it doesn't change the tom******y that went on.
Today the ATF said in a statement it would not seek to issue final guidelines at this time (link below). They advise they will wait until the end of the comment period and then evaluate those comments before "Proceeding with any framework."
Well, WTF does that mean? Weren't they supposed to do that anyway?
Here's a few words from our favorite bearded gun-slinging attorney. You need to read it and understand what's going on. This isn't the last time they're going to try some lawless **** like this - though the next time might be a little more sneaky...unless that's what they're doing now. Mad Duo
M855_BAN_1
ATF and Alphabet Soup…Lessons In Plain Meaning
Do you recall sitting in English class during high school to hear other students and the teacher debate the deeper meaning of a passage? I do. It would seem that some of these individuals and scholars spent abhorrent amounts of time searching for alternate meaning to a rather simple sentence. Perhaps to create the illusion they were smarter than they actually were or perhaps to change the meaning of what was quite literally “the carpet was red.”
It would seem that ATF had taken the same kind of approach in classifying SS109/M855 “green tip” as armor piercing in the mid 80’s. After a lot of searching and the help of some industry friends, I was able to locate the original determination letter which exempted green tip ammunition from being classified as armor piercing.
At the time the exemption was granted, armor piercing was defined as:
a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. Such term does not include … a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes…
As half the internet has now gone to their basement with a hacksaw, torch or other implement to perform surgery on one of these projectiles to find out what it is really composed of, it should be no surprise that the round is not armor piercing by definition. But how did ATF view it?
ATF in its determination said:
Examination of the SS109 (M855 Ball) ammunition indicates that the projectile is constructed using a full metal jacket and projectile cores constructed of a steel penetrator located forward of a lead core. Based on its construction, the SS109/ M855 projectile meets the above definition of armor piercing ammunition.
How could that be? The projectile itself is not made out of one of the enumerated materials, so that only leaves the core. As ATF has developed an affinity in utilizing dictionaries to define terms, such as “redesign” in their Sig Arm Brace open letter, it is only fair that the favor is returned.
M855_BAN_3jpg
Dictionary.com defines “core” as a noun meaning “the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.”As the construct of the projectile is a copper jacket, steel penetrator and lead core, weighing roughly 20 grains, 10 grains and 32 grains respectively, it would seem unlikely that the steel penetrator could be considered the core. That is, unless you were to engage in some outlandish analysis to arrive at that conclusion, much like my high school English experiences.
OP-BBC-Ad486x60
It would seem as I’ve been arguing all along, ATF never had the authority to regulate SS109/M855 from the beginning. It, by definition, does not fit within the criteria that Congress set out.
If you haven’t submitted a comment there is still time. And while the M855 issue is obviously on the forefront of everyone’s minds; be sure to look at the proposed framework. It is a dangerous proposition with far reaching implications that will come back to hurt us as a community if it is not addressed. The more individuals looking at what is proposed, thinking about it and writing responses as to how it would negatively affect the firearms community, the better.
Do You Even Liberty 4
Submit your comment by March 16, 2015. You can do so in one of three ways:
ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Here's that ATF advisory: http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...framework.html
Comms Plan
Primary: Subscribe to our newsletter here or get the RSS feed.
Alternate: Join us on Facebook here or check us out on Instagram here.
Contingency: Exercise your inner perv with us on Tumblr here, follow us on Twitter here or connect on Google + here.
Emergency: Activate firefly, deploy green (or brown) star cluster, get your wank sock out of your ruck and stand by 'til we come get you.
images_mad_duo_Over_Duo
Comment