ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many members of the house are there? How many of those are pro-gun? Also, where did you get the info on those signatures, if you don't mind my asking, I'd like to see how many this gets each day.
 
Last edited:
There are 435 voting House members. I haven't run the numbers since the midterms; but something like 228 of them are NRA A-rated or better. Getting through the House should be simple. Getting through the Senate without a bad amendment will be harder. Unless it gets attached to something the President wants more, that will be the hardest part.
 
^^^
There are 435 members in the House of Representatives. I don't know how many are pro gun. But even if it is 100%, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if they are unwilling to use their constitutional powers to stop unlawful executive actions.
 
Gentlemen
If you believe that this has any purpose other than to limit the amount of SS109 rounds coming back into this country to be sold as surplus than you are not paying attention. Obama is antigun and can't get his way any other way than to direct his BATFE to do this. The honest truth is he cares nothing about me or all the rest of the law enforcement officers in this country. All of us who wear a vest know it's not going to stop rifle round out a pistol or rifle. :mad:
 
So,from my crash course in gov't here...

If we get a majority in the house, it still has to be approved by the Senate? How does the senate deal with this? But then can't the president veto it and it be pretty much "kaput"?
 
Congress, specifically the House, controls the purse string. No funding would mean no enforcement. But this requires intestional fortitude, which seems to be quite lacking at this time.
 
The short version is most legislation can originate in either the Senate or the House. In the House, it is very difficult to amend a bill from the floor, so who controls the Committees is of utmost importance since they can advance or block bills entirely.

In the Senate, any Senator can offer a germane (related to the subject of the bill) amendment from the floor. What amendments will be offered and how are usually the result of behind-the-scenes agreements between the Senators and Senate leadership. For example, the NRA killed their own firearms bill in 2003, after Dem Senators successfully attached a renewal of the AWB to it (even though Republicans held the Senate leadership). After the 2004 elections, they were able to pass the same bill without any anti-gun provisions due to electoral victories.

One rule though, is that all funding bills must originate in the House - and the Senate has to follow certain rules regarding amending those bills. Since they are important to the operation of government, they can be one avenue of attack - for example, in the past, the House has defunded any appropriations to the ATF for the purpose of enforcing certain regulatory measures the House disagreed with; but that the President would veto if they tried to change it.

The library link in the corner has a lot of good info on the legislative process that will take you beyond the Schoolhouse Rock level.
 
A veto can be overridden.

There is one other way Congress can slow down or stop a runaway executive branch. But they said that course of action won't even be considered.
 
Difficult to turn into legislation in the sense that they actually change any of the current law? Yes. Slightly less difficult to defund entirely or since the guy who authored the letter has a lot of power over ATF's overall budget, reach an understanding vis-a-vis sudden, unexplained policy changes.

It will certainly let us know how far Obama is willing to go to push gun control.
 
I just returned from a visit to our LGS and Walmart. I went by the gumshop first.

They had some folks come in and wondering if they should buy up ammo for their AR's because of law changes. The employees assured them that ammo will be available for their guns, at least for now.

At Walmart I decided to look into ammo cabinet. All .223/5.56 was sold out but a few boxes. Their ammo in these calibers was stocked full last week. I guess Walmart employees are not into customer education.

But, even through ignorance, there is a run on 223/5.56 ammo, isn't that effect a defacto ban?

We had 2014, it hasn't helped much. Don't expect a miracle in 2016.
 
Mosin-Marauder said:
So, don't jump all over me for assuming this, but the way I read it, it's going to very hard to turn this letter into legislation?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be legislated.

There are laws already on the books that delegate to the BATFE the authority to adopt regulations by which to carry out previously enacted "umbrella" legislation. The BATFE then follows a process under which regulations are adopted and, later, amended. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a law -- and it created a federal body (the Access Board) to write regulations for the purpose of making America more accessible to people with disabilities.

The agency proposes a draft of the regulation. They then submit the draft to public review and comment for a period of time. After the public comment period has closed, the agency reviews the comments, takes the ones it likes and modifies the draft regulation, and then it gets published in the Federal Register. Once it has been published in the Federal Register, it has the force of law. And it doesn't go through either the House or the Senate, and the President doesn't get to veto it.

Surely you've seen some of the many posts on this site discussing concealed (or open) carry in National Parks, federal facilities, and post offices. Those aren't "laws" being discussed. Notice that when the actual language is quoted, it's attributed to "CFR." [As in 49 C.F.R. § 1540.111, the regulations covering travel by aircraft with firearms.] CFR is the abbreviation for "Code of Federal Regulations." It's a HUGE body of work, and something i the CFR probably affects every single person in the U.S. in some way every single day.

And then there's the U.S. Code, which is where the actual laws are collected and published.

http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Reference-Shelf/Laws.shtml
 
Last edited:
There is one other way Congress can slow down or stop a runaway executive branch.
Click to expand...
We're still not sure this was ordered by anyone in the executive branch, are we?

The House does control funding for the ATF, and one way to bring pressure would be a threat to reduce that funding.
 
We're still not sure this was ordered by anyone in the executive branch, are we?
Click to expand...

I am positive it had to be someone in the Executive branch, just not certain who.

I cannot reasonably credit the Judicial or Legislative branch as the origin of the proposed ATF regulation.

It has to come from someone in the chain of command in or over the ATF. It might not have originated in the Oval office, but you can bet that if that office disapproved of it, their agencies would not be pushing to implement it.

And, even if you believe that our nation's top executives didn't know about it (until they heard it on the news), they SURELY have heard about it, by now.
 
I cannot reasonably credit the Judicial or Legislative branch as the origin of the proposed ATF regulation.
Click to expand...

An important point in analyzing this is ATF claims this is not a regulatory change - because that would require a 90 day notice under the APA and a response to every substantive comment they received. Instead, ATF is framing this as a "mere policy change" with the notice and comment period being just a signal of their benevolence towards the community.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
An important point in analyzing this is ATF claims this is not a regulatory change - because that would require a 90 day notice under the APA and a response to every substantive comment they received.
Click to expand...
Good point. They are not revising the regulation, they are revising what they say the regulation means.
 
Glenn,

With rare exception, I don't think most informed people believe that all 5.56 ammunition is
being banned. What is a greater concern, however, is the basis upon which this ban is proposed.

The interpretive precedent (in both the "sporting purpose" reqm't and the who-shall-determine
clause) is a legal door that -- once re-greased -- will be open for Mac Truck usage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top