Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle

[SOUSGT 357]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-to-ban-bullets-by-executive-action-threatens-top-selling-ar-15-rifle/article/2560750

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

"The Obama administration was unable to ban America's most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it's trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA,

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo. There is no reference to State or Local agencies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/26/obama-to-ban-bullets-by-executive-action-threatens-top-selling-ar-15-rifle/

Edited February 27, 2015 by SOUSGT

[antiquefirelt 994]

Is this a total ban on 5.56 and/or .223 or just the "Green Tip" ban? Funny to ban such a weak cartridge while allowing far more deadly ones. Hell I'm sure you can get AR's in over a dozen cartrdges.

[50-65 205]

This only applies to the "green tip" M855/SS109 projectile in the 5.56mm cartridge. These are a 62gr, steel core, jacketed projectile otherwise known as "light armor piercing" or "penetrator" rounds.

This all stems from legislation from 1986 banning the use of "armor piercing" ammunition in handguns. Since you can now build/buy an AR type handgun (in some free states, NOT NY), that now places this ammo into that catagory.

This ammo was previously exempted from the ban on AP rounds, but because you can now use it in a handgun, the ATF is seeking to remove the exemption.

It does not "threaten" the AR as such. Most of the ammunition used in these is the 55gr lead core. That is by far the cheapest and most produced type.

And yes, AR type rifles can be had in nearly every commercially produced caliber and numerous "wildcat" cartridges. .223/5.56 and .308/7.62 being the most common.

Edited February 27, 2015 by 50-65

[antiquefirelt 994]

This only applies to the "green tip" M855/SS109 projectile in the 5.56mm cartridge. These are a 62gr, steel core, jacketed projectile otherwise known as "light armor piercing" or "penetrator" rounds.

This all stems from legislation from 1986 banning the use of "armor piercing" ammunition in handguns. Since you can now build/buy an AR type handgun (in some free states, NOT NY), that now places this ammo into that catagory.

This ammo was previously exempted from the ban on AP rounds, but because you can now use it in a handgun, the ATF is seeking to remove the exemption.

It does not "threaten" the AR as such. Most of the ammunition used in these is the 55gr lead core. That is by far the cheapest and most produced type.

And yes, AR type rifles can be had in nearly every commercially produced caliber and numerous "wildcat" cartridges. .223/5.56 and .308/7.62 being the most common.

That's what I was thinking. Not a big deal to me personally. As a matter of fact I've been somewhat interested following the whole rifle/handgun transformation. If appears that the newest rules/allowance don't care about the concealablity of a rifle as long as you don't have a buttstock to assist in aiming? You can have an AR with a 16" or greater barrel with a buttstock or one with any shorter barrel with a strap on steadying device, but not a stock?

[velcroMedic1987 330]

More legislating by the executive branch. Not a fan of these actions at all.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

More legislating by the executive branch. Not a fan of these actions at all.

Well when congress won't do it...this is what you get.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Well when congress won't do it...this is what you get.

You mean when our government as it was designed, and the parties elected, don't do what you want, this is what you do? Slippery slope when the Executive Office can force their bidding upon us, remember what works for this president will surely be used by the next. As I recall our Forefathers designed our model to eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules". Pretty sure theirs been some rolling going on in many graves, for many years. Sad part is, this just emboldens elected officials at every level. Our governor who is the political polar opposite of our President is abusing his executive power on a daily basis to ensure his agenda.

Edited February 27, 2015 by antiquefirelt

[1911 34]

From a Forbes article recently...

"Is .223 M855 ball ammunition currently a problem for law enforcement? Or, more precisely, is M855 ball ammunition when shot from handguns killing law-enforcement officers? According to the FBI’s “uniform crime reports” about 2.5 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any caliber. The FBI does not break out its statistics by caliber. I was also not able to uncover a single murder of a police officer in a shooting where someone used a handgun chambered in .223—much less one using M855 ball ammunition. (The spokesperson for the ATF has thus far failed to respond to questions.)"

Remember, Eric Holder's "biggest failure" was to not enact tougher gun control, even through a Democrat-controlled Senate..This ATF move is a squishy feel-good measure that will do absolutely nothing to effect crime and once again only affect law-abiding gun owners . This M855 ammo was deemed obsolete by the US Military and was sold as surplus to the plinking/target shooting crowd.. I agree about the Executive Orders being the real thing to fear. Whats next? One more degree hotter for that frog in the pot... Sheeez

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

You mean when our government as it was designed, and the parties elected, don't do what you want, this is what you do? Slippery slope when the Executive Office can force their bidding upon us, remember what works for this president will surely be used by the next. As I recall our Forefathers designed our model to eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules". Pretty sure theirs been some rolling going on in many graves, for many years. Sad part is, this just emboldens elected officials at every level. Our governor who is the political polar opposite of our President is abusing his executive power on a daily basis to ensure his agenda.

I have no dog in the AR-15 fight, but I can tell you that congress wasn't designed to grind to halt either...but that doesn't stop "one man's rules" (McConnell or Boehner) from making it a "slippery slope" either.

You should ask the the DHS employees going without pay because congress couldn't agree on funding if they wish the president could authorize their funding...

At some point it becomes essential to legislate, something that cannot happen when you have one of the most unproductive congresses in the 200+ year history of the country.

If our founding fathers had truly tried to make this country "eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules" how do explain federalism, republicanism, recess appointments, martial rule, executive actions and pardons etc all enshrined in the constitution or delineated and protected by the supreme court?

Edited February 27, 2015 by SRS131EMTFF

[Bnechis 3,961]

but I can tell you that congress wasn't designed to grind to halt either...

Actually it was designed to work at a snails pace. The founding fathers wanted committee's and debate and time to consider the ramifications.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Actually it was designed to work at a snails pace. The founding fathers wanted committee's and debate and time to consider the ramifications.

At what point does "debate" become "obstruction"?

I again have to point out that Congress "debated" DHS funding ad nauseum, and yet look at what happened. I bet you would not have the same opinion of "debate" if you were working without a pay check.

Maybe if congress legislated instead of debated we would not have this conversation.

Edited February 28, 2015 by SRS131EMTFF

[50-65 205]

That's what I was thinking. Not a big deal to me personally. As a matter of fact I've been somewhat interested following the whole rifle/handgun transformation. If appears that the newest rules/allowance don't care about the concealablity of a rifle as long as you don't have a buttstock to assist in aiming? You can have an AR with a 16" or greater barrel with a buttstock or one with any shorter barrel with a strap on steadying device, but not a stock?

If the barrel is less than 16" AND you have a buttstock, that is a short barrel rifle (SBR). That is legal (in some free states) so long as you pay the $200 tax and register it with the ATF under the guidelines of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This is the same act that regulates silencers/suppressors and fully automatic or select fire firearms.

Without the buttstock, it is a pistol if the barrel is less than 16". Which again, is only legal in free states, not the Empire of NY.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

Edited February 28, 2015 by 50-65

[antiquefirelt 994]

If the barrel is less than 16" AND you have a buttstock, that is a short barrel rifle (SBR). That is legal (in some free states) so long as you pay the $200 tax and register it with the ATF under the guidelines of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This is the same act that regulates silencers/suppressors and fully automatic or select fire firearms.

Without the buttstock, it is a pistol if the barrel is less than 16". Which again, is only legal in free states, not the Empire of NY.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

I get it, but I just don't see the logic. Your everyday citizen can't get an SBR (w/o the NFA hoops), but if the buttstock is replaced with a steadying device for "one-handed" shooting, it's a legal pistol? What's the purpose of regulating SBRs if the same firearms can be a legal pistol? It appears the only substantive difference is the steadier aim of the buttstock?

Edited February 28, 2015 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

I have no dog in the AR-15 fight, but I can tell you that congress wasn't designed to grind to halt either...but that doesn't stop "one man's rules" (McConnell or Boehner) from making it a "slippery slope" either.

You should ask the the DHS employees going without pay because congress couldn't agree on funding if they wish the president could authorize their funding...

At some point it becomes essential to legislate, something that cannot happen when you have one of the most unproductive congresses in the 200+ year history of the country.

If our founding fathers had truly tried to make this country "eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules" how do explain federalism, republicanism, recess appointments, martial rule, executive actions and pardons etc all enshrined in the constitution or delineated and protected by the supreme court?

I wonder if you'll feel the same way when a Republican is abusing this power (if they ever gain the Presidency again)? Yeah sure they've done it, but wait until the next one! This will become part of the routine for all presidents to come. And the President has plenty of sway with his party, so he's got some gridlock blood on his hands as well. In fact, the more he (or any Executive) abuses this power, the more we're likely to see partisan gridlock. It's kind of like blaming the whole game on the person who blew the final play, it takes a lot of mistakes to get to where we are today.

Edited February 28, 2015 by antiquefirelt

[50-65 205]

I get it, but I just don't see the logic. Your everyday citizen can't get an SBR (w/o the NFA hoops), but if the buttstock is replaced with a steadying device for "one-handed" shooting, it's a legal pistol? What's the purpose of regulating SBRs if the same firearms can be a legal pistol? It appears the only substantive difference is the steadier aim of the buttstock?

Like most regulations concerning firearms, they don't make sense. They are often put into place based on the science of emotion and gimmicks, not for any real crime reducing purpose.

[50-65 205]

.

Edited February 28, 2015 by 50-65

[50-65 205]

As an example, in NYS, this rifle, a Ruger 10/22, is legal:

If I add this stock, it becomes an "assault weapon" under current NY law.