Friday, March 13, 2015

Democrats As Slow Learners

Even half-witted Democrats like Clinton ever since 1994 have recognized that gun control is not a crowd pleaser.  But now that BATF has withdrawn its proposal to ban M855 .223 ammo, Congressional Democrats are pushing for them to do so.
Congressional Democrats are pressuring the Obama administration to move ahead  “swiftly” with a proposal that would ban a form of armor-piercing ammunition.

In a draft letter first obtained by The Hill, Democrats are urging the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to use his “existing authority” to keep “dangerous ammunition out of our communities.”

“We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition,” Democrats write in the letter.

The ATF had sought to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing or selling 5.56 mm projectiles for M855 cartridges, arguing they are a threat to law enforcement officers because they can be used in handguns.

But the proposal generated a firestorm of opposition from Republicans and gun groups, who denounced it as an attack on the Second Amendment that could open the door to sweeping restrictions on ammunition.With the backlash growing, the ATF backed down earlier this week, shelving the proposal indefinitely to allow time for “further study.”


  1. I've written extensively of late (including to the BATFE, NRA, GOA, and my federal political representatives) about how the existing classification of M855 is not legal under the referenced 18 USC definition of armor piercing ammunition. For the life of me, I don't understand why no one with a national platform available to them (i.e., the politicians, pundits, and the lobbying organizations) is making this point: that the very 18 USC subsection the BATFE is referencing as categorizing M855 as armor piercing actually PRECLUDES that particular round on definitional grounds. It doesn't qualify for an exemption in the first place, let alone a revocation of one. Seems to me like the easiest, most efficient, and most conclusive argument to make, but it's not happening for whatever reason (maybe I'm just missing something obvious)…

    By the way, I recently received my copy of Armed America and am really looking forward to reading it.

  2. The Heller attorneys cabal is well aware of this defect. When your enemy is digging a deep hole, it is best to wait until they are in over their heads to point this out.

    1. Yep. If there exists a possibility that a bad but terminally-defective policy might be enacted or enforced, sometimes the best answer is to challenge the matter in court, hoisting the policy by its over-reaching petard.

  3. Bias much, right there in the first paragraph....

  4. They keep hoping and hoping that with just a few more pushes, America will be disarmed. And then they won't have to worry about being elected anymore. Who will stand in their way?