Another attempt to ban 5.56. This time via legislation.

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:12:15 -0400

The previous ban attempt by the BATF was abandoned due to public backlash. Now it has been resurrected via legislation.

Thoughts?

The ATF’s Ammo Ban Is Back…in the Form of a New Bill From Democrats

Four House Democrats have taken the Obama administration's idea of a regulation to ban a widely used kind of ammunition — one it had to pull back because it was so unpopular — and turned it into legislation. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) introduced the Armor Piercing Bullets Act,...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 11:31 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:31:02 -0400

The democrats don't have the votes to turn the lights on in their offices with out the republican consent. This is actually less useless than the republicans repealing Obama-care, because the republicans at least controlled the house at the time.

Response by SPC Joe McGovern made Mar 16 at 2015 12:22 PM

SPC Joe McGovern — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:22:08 -0400

Get them NOW Got to ammotogo.com and you will find a case of 1000 rounds in a TRUE 5.56 for $$449.95 or about .45 cents a round That is dirt CHEAP!!!!! They ship FED-EX RIGHT TO YOUR DOOR.
These are 62 grain LAP ROUNDS!! Like I said in the beginning get them NOW BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF F#%KS THE ATF GIVES IS 00 !!!!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 12:27 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:27:26 -0400

Quite honestly I need to do some calculations on exactly how many times I ran into 5.56 ammo, or an 'easily concealable handgun capable of firing this ammo' while on duty as a police officer.

Gimme a minute now...

The calculator is thinking...

Carry the 3...

And the grand total is....ZERO.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Mar 16 at 2015 12:37 PM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:37:31 -0400

This whole debate leaves me of two (or more) minds.

First, I cannot conceive of any ACTUAL need for "armor-piercing" ammunition in hunting.

Second, I cannot conceive of any ACTUAL increase in the need NOT to have "armor-piercing" ammunition in the hands of civilians.

Third, the positions taken by the "Pro-Gun Nuts" leads me to conclude that they would oppose a ban on personal possessions of nuclear weapons due to the fact that the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers when they brought The Ten Amendments down from Mt. Vernon was that ALL Americans had a God-given Constitutional Right to possess nuclear weapons.

Fourth, the positions taken by the "Anti-Gun Nuts" leads me to conclude that they would favor banning 'Nerf' bats since it is possible to kill someone with one and the Founding Fathers didn't say "a well organized AND ARMED militia" when the Second Amendment was adopted.

On the other hand, if anyone would like to purchase a couple of C-tainers of "deep penetrating" 5.56 hunting ammunition (I know that it's hunting ammunition because it says so on the box and has a clear warning "Do NOT for shooting at peoples"), then there are several PRC companies that would be more than pleased to help you preserve your constitutional rights.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 16 at 2015 12:56 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:56:19 -0400

Former gun dealer here.

I would like to introduce you to a phrase

"Nothing sells guns like Democrats"

This is a non-issue. Please ignore it. It's great to be paranoid, but if you're paranoid about this you need better meds than the ones I'm on.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 1:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:18:47 -0400

Gentlemen, we all know that this proposed ban on 5.56 on the grounds of being a "Cop Killer" armor-piercing handgun round makes about as much sense as rainbow-farting unicorns and Bigfoot sightings in Manhattan. Now, consider the famous words of former Obama Chief-Of-Staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel; "Never let a crisis go to waste." I cannot help but thinking of those words in the aftermath of the two police officers shot and wounded in Ferguson , MO last week. Is it so far outside of the realm of possibility that those officers were shot deliberately, for the specific intent of giving this proposed ban traction? World history is full of such underhanded maneuvers...

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Mar 16 at 2015 1:21 PM

PO1 Dustin Adams — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:21:29 -0400

Gun control is a myth, it is all about power. This is just another attempt to shift the power from the people to the government.
1. Their definition of "armor-piercing" (or at least how they are applying it) applies to just about every medium+ caliber rifle round.
2. There have been 0 incidents of a LEO being shot with a 5.56/.223 rnd from a pistol.

Hopefully with a Republican lead Congress this proposal will be DOA.

What is really scary is most of the legislators that propose these types of bills have 0 clue what they are talking about.

This bill looks like it would try to go even further than the ATF in that it would outright ban any round that could penetrate the body armor worn by law enforcement. ATF was trying to ban the sale and/or import of the 5.56 "green tips", it would have still been legal to own them, this bill looks like it would make it illegal to own them and any other round deemed "armor-piercing".

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Mar 16 at 2015 1:37 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:37:03 -0400

I would be more concerned about the POTUS sneaking it through in some form of executive action than i would it even getting to a vote in Congress at the moment.

Congress is still feeling the affects of this past election and with presidential elections coming, I don't think they are as willing to ignore the people as much as they did in the past.

Remember, It was the dems pushing their agenda through a congress they controlled, and against public concern, that changed the balance of power on Capitol Hill.

I don't think the republicans are willing to enact unpopular legislation, they too learned that their positions were given by the people, and the people have no problem booting them out if need be.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 2:01 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:01:46 -0400

Cop killer ammo? Isn't all ammo cop killing ammo?

OK Government here Is all my gun ammo. You want all my F***** nurf gun ammo too while you are being a stupid D***?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 16 at 2015 2:35 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:35:19 -0400

Why are even discussing this? The Republican Party, which controls both chambers of Congress, would never pass such legislation, would they?

Didn't we decimate the Democratic hold on Congress to put an end to madness such as this?

Didn't we elect Republicans to undo the damage?

Yeah, we're beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis because our confidence in the GOP is flagging, isn't it?

Well, before anyone rushes off to start another party, think about this: Is we can't take back our party, how can we take back our nation? (That goes for members of both major political parties.)

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 3:28 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:28:19 -0400

Hmmmm. I own (as of just the last couple years) several firearms. That makes me an expert at just about nothing in the weapons/ammo arena. However, I think 5.56 ammo can be hand loaded. As such, the powers that be can ban it all they want. If someone chooses to load their own...okey dokey fine. Poop on their silly ban. Not as convenient but certainly quite doable. No?

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 16 at 2015 7:28 PM

BG David Fleming III — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:28:44 -0400

In my humble opinion, "gun control" should be limited to the recoil after you squeeze a round off!

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Mar 17 at 2015 6:16 AM

SGT Steve Oakes — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:16:26 -0400

Just another case of the Congress doing what the people clearly do not want.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 17 at 2015 1:26 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:26:23 -0400

All slight of hand. While the NRA supporters and the Republican types that are fighting to keep their second amendment rights, what is being done in the shadows? What have the Republicans and Democrats agreed upon to increase their personal wealth and power?

This is always about distracting your attention as is gay marriage, transgender rights, etc, etc.

Response by MSG Oskar Schlomer made Mar 17 at 2015 1:43 PM

MSG Oskar Schlomer — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:43:44 -0400

Regardless of the caliber of the bullet they all have the capability of killing someone or something when someone wants to use it for that intent. In my opinion the idea of the ban is ludicrous.

Response by SGT William Howell made Mar 17 at 2015 1:44 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:44:44 -0400

I had a professor in college that always warned never trust anything that is "for the children". His belief was that there is no legitimate facts to back up an argument, so you have you pull on heart strings to try to make the argument legit.

This bill is the same. It is "for the police officers safety". There is no ligament argument for this bill. Any 5.56/.223 will defeat level 3A body armor. Actually, any spitzer bullet will defeat soft body armor, making all rifle rounds armor piercing.

The argument that it can be fired from a pistol is just silly. All rifle rounds can be fired from a pistol. There are thousands of bolt action pistols that use rifle rounds. If this law were to pass it could be interpreted that ALL AMMO could be banned.

Make no mistake this is a backward attempt at gun control.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Mar 17 at 2015 2:01 PM

MSgt Allan Vrboncic — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:01:54 -0400

This is what happens when you keep relying more and more on the Government to take care of you. Once you let them in and they get a foot hold, they start looking to control you from top to bottom.

Response by Lt Col Clay Cowgill made Mar 17 at 2015 2:02 PM

Lt Col Clay Cowgill — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:02:05 -0400

Democrats don't have the votes in the senate. They need 60, right?

Response by SGT James Hunsinger made Apr 2 at 2015 6:06 PM

SGT James Hunsinger — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:06:22 -0400

To those of you who keep making the comments of "Why do you need armor piercing rounds to hunt?" Well, I don't. I have just read over the Second Amendment to our United States Constitution to be sure and sure enough, the word hunting does not show up in it at all. I have my ammo for self defense and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Sound familiar veterans and service members?

The Second Amendment was put in place to ensure the capability of the people to be able to throw off a tyrannical government if/when necessary, not for hunting purposes. In order to throw off a tyrannical government one must have weapons capable of doing so.

For those who like to site that first part of it about a militia. It was not providing for a FEDERAL militia. It was referencing local militias, again, for the capability to throw off a tyrannical government or to handle local issues. Remember, the founding fathers expected the states to carry more governing power than they currently have.

I know where I stand on this whole issue and I know how I feel about the oath I took.

Those that would call me a "Gun Nut" would typically be the left wing liberal that lives under the falsehood that passing gun control laws would fix anything. Because alcohol prohibition and illegalizing narcotics has worked oh so well. Yet, they would be the first to scream bloody murder if their precious 1st Amendment were to be endangered.

I was raised with guns. I have had guns since I was old enough to fire them. I won't give them up without a fight. If wanting to preserve a way of life and freedoms that too many Americans have come to take for granted makes me a "Gun Nut" then I guess I am and proud of it.

A government that fears its people is a good government. A people that fear their government is oppressed.