|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,000
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,000 |
i still think it is a two edged attack. One on the 855, the other environmental restrictions on lead based ammo.
THE BIRTH PLACE OF GERONIMO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
The White House claim that the ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle should be banned as part of a “common sense” effort to protect police officers’ lives is being derided by police officers themselves as a shameful lie. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said this week that the .223-caliber M855 ball should be banned because it can penetrate an officer’s soft armor and can be fired not just from sporting rifles but “easily concealable weapons.” The term “easily concealable” was used to describe the AR-15 handgun. A bulky 6 pounds and 25 inches long, the semi-automatic version of this weapon, with a magazine, would be difficult to conceal, say firearms experts. And it would likely not be the first choice of any street thug or gang member, as it retails for between $1,000 and $2,000. In fact, gun-rights advocates and law enforcement agencies contacted by WND say they have been unable to document a single incident in which a police officer has been taken down by a criminal using an AR-15 handgun in the 20 years since this particular round, the M855 ball, has been exempted from the federal ban on armor-piercing bullets. It was exempted based on its use for sporting purposes. “We have not been able to find a single instance where a police officer has been shot from this type of handgun using a bullet that pierces his soft-body armor, and if the administration had any examples you know they would be pushing it in everybody’s face to further their executive action,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “We’ve scoured everywhere, gone into every source possible to try to find an instance of this and have not been able to find one.” So Earnest’s comments only further infuriated gun owners who were already seeing red over the possibility of losing access to some of the most common ballistics used for sport-target shooting and hunting. WND polled several large police agencies, looking for evidence that vest-wearing officers have been killed or seriously wounded by this particular form of ammunition fired from a handgun, only to come up empty. “Not in my jurisdiction,” said Sheriff David Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. “We’re doing a search nationwide to see if there’s any data that exists as proof of this comment coming out of the White House, but so far we haven’t found anything.” Clarke said he was skeptical that the White House was really concerned about officer safety. “I’m disgusted that this administration would use the safety and well-being of our nation’s law enforcement officers to accomplish their gun-control agenda by circumventing the Congress and circumventing the Constitution in rewriting this law,” he said. “That’s all this is. They don’t fool me. No fraternal order of police, no sheriff is going to fall for this.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/zero-cops-killed-by-obamas-bad-ammo/#kZX3lVz81jGLM3uD.99 Gee, no surprise there. This is just a blatant ban for the sake of a ban. AP is just an excuse and it's a lame excuse. Not only does M855 not meet the military's requirements for AP (they have a separate AP round), but it doesn't even meet ATF's definition. This is pure politics, and it's a blatant attempt of our POS anti-gun Administration to ban ammo, just to ban SOMETHING.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
i still think it is a two edged attack. One on the 855, the other environmental restrictions on lead based ammo. anything lead banned for environmental. anything mono or tipped banned because its armor piercing. hmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Gee, no surprise there. This is just a blatant ban for the sake of a ban. AP is just an excuse and it's a lame excuse. Not only does M855 not meet the military's requirements for AP (they have a separate AP round), but it doesn't even meet ATF's definition. This is pure politics, and it's a blatant attempt of our POS anti-gun Administration to ban ammo, just to ban SOMETHING. Yep! Just for chits & giggles I ran a search on the Huff post for M855.  Executive Order M855 The answer is that it does not. Whether you examine 5.56/.223 ammunition from a muzzle energy or penetration energy concentration perspective, at urban law enforcement engagement ranges, all of it does the same thing. It all hits with around three times the energy of a .357 magnum with about four times the soft armor defeat potential or "burn through efficiency" of true pistol ammunition. It doesn't matter if it's Vietnam era M193 55 grain ammunition, M-16A2 era M855/SS109 62 grain ammunition, or borrowed from the competition world Mk262 Mod 0/1 77 grain ammunition. In a gunfight with an opponent one and one half car lengths from you, it all performs about the same. All of it will defeat Level IIIA soft body armor.
In this instance, this causes me to conclude that BATFE is stretching the rubber band of interpreting the law to create bureaucratic rules a bit too much. When that happens, my smell detector goes off and I start to ask whether the rule is truly public safety motivated.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,639
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,639 |
Just keep telling the lie long enough and it will become the truth.. [bleep] lawn jockey..
Speak softly and use a big bore...
Where's El Cid when we need him...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
In this instance, this causes me to conclude that BATFE is stretching the rubber band of interpreting the law to create bureaucratic rules a bit too much. When that happens, my smell detector goes off and I start to ask whether the rule is truly public safety motivated. I'm sitting here thinking...I can't think of any bans the ATF has done in my lifetime that made the public any safer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625 |
Reagan supported keeping civilians from having ammunition. Good enough for any Conservative. There is not much point in listening to you spout lies like this one. Are you ever going to say anything of value? Reagan wasn't lying and neither am I for relaying His words. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37785Statement on Signing the Bill To Regulate Armor-Piercing Ammunition August 28, 1986 It is a pleasure to be able to sign into law H.R. 3132 to ban the production or importation of the so-called cop-killer bullets, which pose an unreasonable threat to law enforcement officers who use soft body armor. This bill, similar to legislation jointly submitted to the Congress by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury in 1984, recognizes that certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited. Such action is long overdue. During the 61/2 years that I have served as President, I have sought to strengthen law enforcement in this nation and to do everything possible to protect the lives and safety of the dedicated men and women who constitute our first line of defense against the forces of lawlessness. I am pleased, therefore, to sign H.R. 3132 to ban armor-piercing ammunition as this legislation has long had the strong endorsement of our outstanding law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Sheriffs Association, Fraternal Order of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Association of Police Organizations, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Black Police Association, National Troopers Coalition, International Union of Police Associations, Police Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation, Police Management Associations, and the Major City Chiefs. In signing this bill, I want to urge those States and localities that have not acquired body armor for their law enforcement officers to obtain such lifesaving equipment for their officers. The use of soft body armor is credited with saving the lives of more than 600 officers since it was first introduced in the 1970's. An even more important message is the one I have for law enforcement officers: If you have access to soft body armor, please use it. Your lives and safety are too important to risk needlessly. The fabric used in modern soft body armor is truly a miracle fiber, but it is useless if left in the dressing room locker or the trunk of a squad car. In signing H.R. 3132, I am giving our law enforcement officers my pledge to do everything possible to eliminate the hazard posed by armor-piercing ammunition. Those officers who in the past may have used the threat of armor-piercing bullets as a justification for failing to wear soft body armor should no longer have that excuse. We are doing our best at the Federal level to enhance the safety of police officers but must have the cooperation of the officers themselves to secure the full benefits of this important legislative action. Note: H.R. $132, approved August 28, was assigned Public Law No. 99-408. Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Statement on Signing the Bill To Regulate Armor-Piercing Ammunition ," August 28, 1986. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37785.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625 |
In this instance, this causes me to conclude that BATFE is stretching the rubber band of interpreting the law to create bureaucratic rules a bit too much. When that happens, my smell detector goes off and I start to ask whether the rule is truly public safety motivated. I'm sitting here thinking...I can't think of any bans the ATF has done in my lifetime that made the public any safer. But it could. Like bans on machine guns, short barrels, certain dogs, drugs, and everything else.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,661 |
In this instance, this causes me to conclude that BATFE is stretching the rubber band of interpreting the law to create bureaucratic rules a bit too much. When that happens, my smell detector goes off and I start to ask whether the rule is truly public safety motivated. I'm sitting here thinking...I can't think of any bans the ATF has done in my lifetime that made the public any safer. But it could. Like bans on machine guns, short barrels, certain dogs, drugs, and everything else. The ban on legally owned in 1986 was a solution in search of a problem. And the war on drugs...well there's a success story...NOT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,625 |
In this instance, this causes me to conclude that BATFE is stretching the rubber band of interpreting the law to create bureaucratic rules a bit too much. When that happens, my smell detector goes off and I start to ask whether the rule is truly public safety motivated. I'm sitting here thinking...I can't think of any bans the ATF has done in my lifetime that made the public any safer. But it could. Like bans on machine guns, short barrels, certain dogs, drugs, and everything else. The ban on legally owned in 1986 was a solution in search of a problem. And the war on drugs...well there's a success story...NOT. It all works well. Look at how supportive the Nation's police are in the enforcement of those laws. And of course we support NFA34 & GCA68 due to the NRA stumping for both laws.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
623 members (10gaugeman, 160user, 1936M71, 10ring1, 1beaver_shooter, 10gaugemag, 66 invisible),
3,125
guests, and
1,303
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,381
Posts18,469,554
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
