Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**djones520**

News story.

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

It’s starting.

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.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

"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, the group's policy and lobby shop. "The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama's latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms."

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

ATF justification.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

And so it begins...

**Jihadin**

This goes through I see some Colorado recalling going to happen.

**Co'tor Shas**

You posted the pdf where you meant to post the new story

**djones520**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
You posted the pdf where you meant to post the new story

Edit: Fixed.

**Grey Templar**

Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.

**Peregrine**

Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

**jreilly89**

So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"

Edit: apparently this is semi-fake.

**Peregrine**

jreilly89 wrote:
So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"

Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.

1) Lots of that ammo already exists.

2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"

Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.

Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?

If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.

Obama is definitely not gun friendly.

**jreilly89**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.

1) Lots of that ammo already exists.

2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.

1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.

2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?

**Co'tor Shas**

I've never really gotten the point of civilian armour piercing ammunition. I don't really see why you would pay extra on something that will never (legaly) be more effective than normal ammuntion.

**jreilly89**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.

1) Lots of that ammo already exists.

2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
So...why is this important? I don't see the big deal other than "Mah gun rights!!!"

Because it fits into conservative ideology about "OBAMA WILL BAN YOUR GUNS!!!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!!". Honestly the biggest effect is probably on gun dealers, who can use it as another opportunity to raise prices while simultaneously screaming "BUY NOW BEFORE THE BAN" and make even more easy profit.

Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?

If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.

Obama is definitely not gun friendly.

Something something guy just killed at gun range. But right, its Obamas fault.

**jhe90**

Anyway a lot more powerful ammo out there.

And 5.56 is another way of saying .223 which is not exactly huge.

Old mosins are cheap and fire a far more powerful round, full battle round. 12.7mm is legal in places.... And then there's the very rare but enormous elephant/double rifles.
Some states even ban 5.56mm for hunting deer etc.

**djones520**

Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

A very commonly used form of ammunition, that is cheap to acquire due to it's production as a military bullet. No, Obama did not do it, YET. Hence the title, to ban, as in to be done in the future.

**Grey Templar**

jreilly89 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.

1) Lots of that ammo already exists.

2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.

1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.

2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?

1) Maybe, but again banning it accomplishes nothing. So why waste taxpayer money?

2) Because choice. AP ammo doesn't cause problems, so why not let people have it if they want it? Its like banning Ferraris and other high end Sports cars because lots of people die in regular old car accidents. If someone wants a Ferrari let them have a Ferrari.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step.

Except it's a "first step" that's already been done. This isn't a new ban, it's simply a reclassification of a certain type of armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition from "sporting" to "armor-piercing". If you don't like the ban then you should have a problem with the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition, not the decision to state the obvious and put the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition into its proper category.

djones520 wrote:
No, Obama did not do it, YET.

No, Obama didn't do it at all. Read the link I posted, the article in the OP is blatantly lying about Obama doing this by executive order to get around congress.

**Gordon Shumway**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step.

Except it's a "first step" that's already been done. This isn't a new ban, it's simply a reclassification of a certain type of armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition from "sporting" to "armor-piercing". If you don't like the ban then you should have a problem with the original ban on armor-piercing ammunition, not the decision to state the obvious and put the armor-piercing variety of 5.56mm ammunition into its proper category.

djones520 wrote:
No, Obama did not do it, YET.

No, Obama didn't do it at all. Read the link I posted, the article in the OP is blatantly lying about Obama doing this by executive order to get around congress.

You are attempting to use facts for people who use Fox News and "common sense" to justify their perspective. It won't work.

**AduroT**

Grey Templar wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

Its still completely silly to do that for many reasons.

1) Lots of that ammo already exists.

2) Its not hard to make your own Armor Piercing ammo. All you need is reloading equipment and your own bullet molds. IE: the people who feel the need to use AP bullets will also be motivated enough to make their own.

1) So? If it gets banned, thats still less being made.

2) So then why keep it available if its so easy to make?

1) Maybe, but again banning it accomplishes nothing. So why waste taxpayer money?

2) Because choice. AP ammo doesn't cause problems, so why not let people have it if they want it? Its like banning Ferraris and other high end Sports cars because lots of people die in regular old car accidents. If someone wants a Ferrari let them have a Ferrari.

Making murder illegal hasnt stopped everyone from killing each other so we might as well remove that law from the books too.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.

I agree with this.

Peregrine wrote:Sigh. Does nobody bother to check these stories before they post them? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp

TL,DR: Obama didn't do it, and the ban only applies to one particular type of 5.56mm ammunition that was previously classified as armor-piercing.

I also agree with this.

But lets go with blatantly misleading people about what's happening in government. That doesn't say anything at all about the NRA or pro-gun or anything. No sir

**Gordon Shumway**

Obama has been in office for six years, two of those with a Democrat controlled house and senate. How many guns that you had before he was elected have you had to give up since he was elected? Quit your paranoia already. The gullibility would be astounding if it wasn't expected. Really, you use The Washington Examiner as a source and expect not to be laughed at? This is not news. Merely click bait. Good job mindless fish, you fell for it.

**Co'tor Shas**

LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.

I agree with this.

That sounds like bad idea

from wikipedia.
"Its responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives; acts of arson and bombings; and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products. The ATF also regulates via licensing the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce."

It's more than just guns.

**Eilif**

Djones520,
Would you please modify the title and clarify the text of your post to reflect the reality of the situation?

The banning of a certain type of ammo is a subject worthy of discussion, but you muddy the waters and do everyone a disservice through such irresponsible posting that enflames rather than informs.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?

If the Administration really cared about gun violence, they'd take real steps to mitigating it instead of going after guns. Especially symbolic attempts like going after armor piercing.

The "Administration" isn't going after guns, the ATF did submitted this proprosal without Obama being involved.

Obama is definitely not gun friendly.

Yeah, because of Obama no one is able to buy guns in America any more.

**Peregrine**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's more than just guns.

Sure, but all of those things could be done by the FBI. It doesn't make much sense to have multiple redundant federal law enforcement organizations, just consolidate everything into one organization.

**Co'tor Shas**

Then... unfunding does absolutely nothing. The existing regulations would still be in place.

**LordofHats**

What peregrine said. Of all the Federal enforcement agencies, the ATF is far and away the most redundant. Tabacco should be the purview of the DEA and FDA, and guns the FBI (FBI already does lots with guns anyway). Alcohol isn't illegal anymore.

**Haight**

Grey Templar wrote:
Can we just defund the ATF already? It seems like they exist just to infringe on constitutional rights and waste tax payer money trying to do so. Not to mention repeatedly showing they don't have a brain cell among them.

Wait, what ?

ATF also handles Federal level arson and a lot of other crimes that people don't give them credit for. They caught a guy about a year ago that had set 38 major fires that was traveling up and down the eastern seaboard (good friend of mine is ATF).

I mean, i'm not in favor of banning 5.56 mm (though a screaming liberal, i'm a 2nd amendmentist), but i think this is painting ATF with an overly broad brush. Also most ATF are really stand up guys / LE agents trying to do their job / make a difference. It's the administration level management that typically bones things up on them, at least from what I hear from my buddy (which granted may be anecdotal, but its sounds similar to most organizations i know ; management too distant from the business end of an organization fething up the rank and file getting work done and hampering results).

I'm just saying, lets not gak on the agents for stupid ass things the politically minded upper echelons do.

**Co'tor Shas**

I guess that makes sense, but it seems people call for stuff like that, just to magicly get rid of regulation

Edit:ninjed

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Peregrine wrote:
Sure, but all of those things could be done by the FBI. It doesn't make much sense to have multiple redundant federal law enforcement organizations, just consolidate everything into one organization.

It was a department of the FBI (and a part of the DoJ) for a short time in the 1930s but the AFT spent most its time as a part of the Treasury, until Bush transferred it back to the DoJ in the expansion of the Federal government following 9/11. Also, until 2003 it was in charge of collecting taxes from the production tobacco and alcohol.

**Eilif**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Banning a type of ammo is a dangerous first step. Where does it stop?

.

Banning a type of ammo is not s dangerous first step. Various ammos and and guns have already been banned. It's an established part of US law that the Government puts regulations on weapons and ammunition.

It's entirely fair to argue for or against banning a particular type, but it's neither a "first step" nor is it inherently dangerous.