In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Armor Piercing Ammunition
dsmith
Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
On the site http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/news/news59.htm it says the following:
---Begin Quote---
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver--
(5) any firearm or armor-piercing ammunition to any person unless the licensee notes in his records, required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual, or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity.
---End Quote---
Does this mean that there is some procedure for legally getting the "armor piercing" ammunition?
---Begin Quote---
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver--
(5) any firearm or armor-piercing ammunition to any person unless the licensee notes in his records, required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual, or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity.
---End Quote---
Does this mean that there is some procedure for legally getting the "armor piercing" ammunition?
Comments
(H.R. 3132 passed in 1986) prohibited the sale of armor piercing ammunition "which may be used in a "handgun" other than to law enforcement and the military.
In 1994 this was amended to include banning the manufacturing/importation of additional calibers having steel cores like the 7.62x39mm and the .223 or 5.56mm ammo. This came about because Olympic Arms manufactured the OA-93, which was a pistol capable of firing these calibers of ammo. Until then, they were always a rifle ammo, and as such, not affected by the "handgun" ammo ban. The 1994 crime bill also added to the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include, "a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. (Do you know if you have any bullets matching this description? I don't)
Since it is illegal to sell any armor piercing "handgun" ammo to other than law enforcement or military, I believe what they are referring to, in the link you posted, is "new" manufactured ammo, which must be documented as to who it was sold to. Notice that it specifically refers to "licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collectors?" It does not say anything about "private" sales.
I have not been able to find it in writing, but similar to the Clinton "semi-auto assault weapon ban of "94" where they "grand-fathered in" existing semi autos, resulting in the "pre-ban" configuration. It is rumored that the existing steel core ammo was also "grand-fathered" in. I would tend to believe that this is true, because as you can see, steel core ammo is freely bought and sold here on GB, as well as gun shows around the country. Hope this helps.
Just FYI, this is direct from the NRA web site. [;)]
quote:The "existing laws" were adopted in 1986 and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets. These bullets were invented for use by law enforcement and military personnel. NRA helped draft the 1986 provisions and didn`t object to the 1994 amendment.
More FYI
The BATF reported to Congress in 1997, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest. (Sound familiar? Like 50 caliber rifles)
Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, and do not play one on TV. Take any info provided here with a grain of salt.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
We were just having a discussion here about the ban on armor piercing ammo. Relating some of the facts concerning how the ban came into being, and who helped it to. With the fact that NO officer has even been wounded, much less killed, it makes me wonder, where was the NEED to pass such a ban in the first place?
Speculation does not cut it. If, and, should'a, could'a, possibly, maybe? The possible scenarios are endless. I wasn't there, I don't know. I base my opinion on the end results, and the known facts.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
However, I don't care about having armor piercing ammo.
They came for the bazookas and hand grenades. I don't care, I didn't have any.
They came for the machine guns. I don't care, I didn't have any.
They came for the assault weapons. I don't care, I didn't have any.
They came for the handguns. I don't care, I didn't have any.
Oh GOD, they are coming for my hunting rifle. What do I do, is there anyone left to help me?
They came for the armor piercing ammo. I don't care, I didn't have any.
They came for the 50 caliber ammo. I don't care, I didn't have any.
They are coming for the......
At some point a man has to draw a line in the sand. I drew mine long ago.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
I think your thread about "armor piercing ammo" has been hijacked, and turned into
----sigh---- [:(] ANOTHER pro-con NRA thread.
You can fool all of the people, some of the time.
And some of the people, all the time.
But you can't fool ALL the people, all the time.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
1) The NRA adopts a no-compromise attitude.
or
2) The other gun groups reach the size of the NRA and are able to give it some serious competition.
The NRA can "compromise" all they want. In the eyes of the media, they will always be fanatics. However, as they compromise, they will lose those who truly care about gun rights. In the NRA magazines, they will talk about your "right" to hunt, but will never say that you have a "right" to own a fully automatic firearm.
I used to be in the NRA. However it seems that the NRA is unwilling to challenge old laws. The AWB sunset was the one bill the NRA and the Republican party in general could stand up to... ignore a problem long enough, and it will go away.
I will continue to rave about the GOA, but I will conversely continue to complain about any group who erodes my rights, wheter it be the NRA, the Brady Bunch, or the DNC.
I would like it if gun owners would wake up and realize that we should all be on the same side. However, when a group such as the NRA says that they can compromise to any degree, that shows that they are not committed, and don't believe in the ideology. Do a google search for NRA Project Exile. Then ask whose side they are on.
into ----yet another---- pro-con debate. [:(]
It is easy to score a bullseye when taking pot shots at the NRA, they have SO many targets with which to choose from. I could set here all day, bringing up ANTI-GUN legislation in which they either "wrote themselves" or had a hand in writing. Or anti-gun candidates that they endorsed, when there were better candidates running. I could also spend just as much time posting things they have done to "slow down" our ever eroding rights.
It is a never ending debate, but uninformed people need to be given BOTH sides of the issue. You have to admit that MOST people are not very well informed on ANY issue, much less the gun rights issues. Deciding which pro-gun group to support, should be based from an "informed" position. "IF" limited to choosing only one group to support, a "compromise" group, vs. a "no compromise" group, could make the difference in saving our right in the short run. (Long term I see no hope)
Supporting more than one, or all of them (which has repeatedly been suggested, and rightfully so, by "some" members [;)]) if financially able to do so, would be a good choice.
Of course parts of this thread do not make any sense now, what with the posts that have been deleted. While I "could" clean it up, I choose to leave it "as is." But because of this action, I will no longer refrain from posting facts about the NRA. Make of it what you will.
P.S.
dsmith, as you and I well know, it's NOT about hunting. [;)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
P.S.
dsmith, as you and I well know, it's NOT about hunting. [;)]
Exactly. However in an old issue of American Rifleman (once again no longer NRA member) Kayne Robinson started out by saying that you can't hunt if there is no public land, etc. ect., or if firearms laws are too strict. Which sums up the NRA's general stance: protect the hunters.
I once got into contact with the NRA, and asked them if they still supported the full auto ban of 1986. I got a canned propoganda response that the NRA doesn't support any anti-gun legislation. Really? They are on long record of supporting anti-gun legislation. I'd like to support groups other than the GOA (which is my favorite).
In their FAQ, the Second Amendment Foundation says this: Many current laws are reasonable and un-controversial. However, many of them are being broken, with no consequence.
Is the SAF just another NRA? I didn't leave NRA to join a group broken in the same way.
The JPFO isn't a lobbying group. Do they actually do any good?
I'm looking into CCRKBA, KABA (looks good), Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Anybody have any ideas for other good "no-compromise" groups?
I am also looking for a group that has their own credit card. The only ones I found were NRA and SAF, neither of which I am currently considering. Does anybody have any good reccommendations for a credit card group other than NRA and SAF?
The NRA has consistently refused to use JPFO information.." Too Inflamatory"...pointing out how governments disarm citizens..then kill them...is "Inflamatory"...don't you know.
I was browsing through Gun Owners Alliance website today and noticed that the last alert listed on their board, was about Neal Knox passing away. On January 17th of this year. While this IS sad news, no further alerts have been listed. What is the deal?? LOTS of stuff has happened since then. (I will call out ANY group, when what they are doing, or not doing, comes into question)
I am a member of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners group as well. They are Colorado's only "no compromise" lobby. They keep members well informed of potential national, as well as local threats.
Armed Females of America (AFA) is another one worth looking into.
From their web site.
---AFA has taken a NO-COMPROMISE position by calling for the repeal of ALL gun laws back to and including the National Firearms Act of 1934. We, as citizens and gun owners, have already given up our rights to the tune of over 20,000 gun laws. Giving something up without getting anything in return is not compromise -- it's SURRENDER! Now is the time for the anti-freedom, gun grabbers to give us back our RIGHTS!---
The AFA may be small, but they are growing, and I REALLY like their attitude. I highlighted a little there. [;)] Take a look at their "links" page, lots of good info from there.
Don't know of any pro gun credit card companies other than the ones you mentioned.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
And it is always the groups of people who is deemed the greatest threat to that gov't's existence that is targeted. And I have a pretty good idea who the targets will be. First, it will be that group of "extremist" gun owners, like me, or undoubtedly, anyone with a CHL in any state (except the ones that only issue to 'important people'), and then, it will be all the rest, whom I figure, will offer no resistance once they see what happened to all those other "extremists" out there, and by that time, there will be lots of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
When history is recorded, it will not be written as "gun owners", or "extremists", it will read "domestic terrorists" and "traitors among the proletariat". I'm still waiting to see how history judges Australia, and the UK.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
quote:or "extremists", it will read "domestic terrorists" and "traitors among the proletariat".
When history is recorded, it will not be written as "gun owners",
A tiny correction, my friend..That depends ENTIRELY on who wins...[:D]
7 million piss** off well armed gun owners ain't to be sneezed at...
Think of your gun rights as a packages you must get delivered at various times, various locations around the USA, and various obstacles that your delivery company must overcome.
Now it is quite likely that your local and/or favorite small-time delivery company can and does do a better job of delivering your package locally. But if you absoutely positively have to have your package delivered to some remote out-land location you are probably going to have to rely on a national company that has been in business for over 100 years and has the facilities to handle your difficult national delivery problems.
That one large, national and powerful "company" is the NRA. Like it or not, that is the one company for national problems. So before you encourage people to burn that company down, at least put another large, powerful and national company in its place.
As of this writing, the only "company" that even comes close is GOA. And that close is a distant second.
So those of you who want to "burn down the house", you had better have a new house built or you will have no place to go.
But if that is what you are happy with, go for it.
(PS, there were no facts harmed or used in the production of this post; only my personal opinion was used)
Whether or not you've got Wayne LaPierre giving motivating speeches in between periods of supporting "armor piercing" bullet bans, support for "Project Exile", school gun bans (gotta shut down the shooting sports at schools, you know), supporting registering of concealed carry holders over Virginia style laws (gotta make sure the NRA certified instructors get their wallet padding), etc.
Or reading Kayne Robinson (I think that's his name) writing his articles about how you can't "hunt" if your guns are too restricted.
I'd rather have the 300,000 no-compromise GOA members than 4,000,000+ NRA members who will give up ground. Said another way: I'd like to know with absolute certainty that the group I join supports the gun owners on every issue. I know that the GOA will always stick up for me. Every time I hear of a proposed legislation, I wonder whose side the NRA will be on.
One final note: if somebody from the NRA ever reads these forums, I'd like to say this to you. Tell the high-ups just how many of us "pro-gun/anti-NRA" guys there out there, and try and make a change for the best in your orginization. We are not out of reach. We just don't want to see you surrender any more of our rights.
Excellent summation.
Were I a bit more polite...that is the way I would have said it.[:D]
1. Keeping the gun debate in the public eye.
2. Remaining politically relevant (by compromising on legislation).
3. Organizing shooting events, which introduces people to the shooting sports in a friendly, unintimidating manner.
4. Promoting shooting education, especially through the NRA Foundation.
5. Running a great trade show and convention every year, free to all members.
I think we have to understand the structure of the NRA here. The NRA-ILA is a political lobbying organization. They will do whatever it takes to keep the gun debate in the public eye and to remain politically relevant. A "no-compromise" stance would relegate them even further into the "extremist" representation by the media and they would be laughed out of Washington, D.C. Granted, they have participated in legislation that has infringed upon our gun rights, but they have also kept the gun debate going for decades, and they do an excellent job at media relations. Within the past month I have seen the NRA covered on the national nightly news programs at least 4 times. Heck, ABC even made the new NRA president, Sandy Froman, their Person of the Week.
When I support the NRA I try to filter my money to the NRA Foundation, which supports youth programs and firearms education. I think this is the wing of the NRA that does the most valuable work, in my opinion.
I think we should really examine what TR is saying. If the NRA goes away then so does the gun debate. All other organizations are considered to be right-wing extremist front groups for domestic militias and would have absolutely no political pull in Washington. Like it or not, the NRA is the only national organization that has the political clout to seriously pressure legislators to water-down anti-gun legislation. Only in the past two years have we seen enough pro-2nd Amendment legislators in office that we can actually begin to REPEAL gun laws.
But remember this, the NRA-ILA folks don't want every gun law repealed, otherwise they would all be out of jobs.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
If the NRA really wanted pro-gun legislation, they look at the following:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.47:
This bill says that you can are guaranteed the right to own a semi-auto or less (sorry no full autos yet... we still have to deal with the DemoNazis as well as the moderate Republicans) unless you are a felon.
It says if your rights are infringed upon "may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate."
Maybe bills like this are too "pro-gun" for the NRA. I have visited their site, and not heard a word about it. It is thier chance, and they are not taking it. I have heard that 40% of the NRA favored the "assault weapons" ban. If the NRA gets a major victory like this one, they may lose some of their members, because they will have what they want.
It is difficult for me to support the NRA in any way shape or form, after their legislation made an MP5K cost $16,000. They won't even admit that there were any negative parts of their beloved FOPA. No apology, just bragging about their favorite piece of legislation.
A perfect project for Queslings...and perfectly fashoned so as to be able to toady up to those in power....
" See there ? We really are just LIKE you..don't you see..?"
Not.." Use a gun in the commission of a crime...go directly to jail."...of course not.
No...."Violate gun laws ( ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL) and go to jail.."
Sure as he** that is an organization I want defending MY gun rights....
Not necessarily. If every gun law was repealed, they would then start drumming up support for defense against new, insidious gun laws that the rabid anti-gunners are promoting. Because, you better believe that the moment the last gun law is repealed, there will be hordes of rabid anti-gunners screaming about "saving the children!" and other such alarmist twaddle.
Compromise. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. No-compromise stances mark you as an extremist to the majority of people. It makes them uncomfortable, as they do not have that courage of their convictions. In order to convince them, you have to, at least on the surface, appear "reasonable" and willing to "compromise."
At one point in our history, any idea of a gun law was considered a "bad" idea by just about everyone. So much so that the NFA doesn't actually outlaw full-auto firearms, it only taxes the heck out of them. They didn't pass it as a ban because they knew that the majority of people would scream about their 2nd Amendment rights if they did so.
Our rights have been taken away incrementally, much like boiling a frog. They will have to be taken back the same way, because we have to educate the vast majority of people as to what is truly reality when it comes to firearms and deprogram the claptrap that has been fed them from the major media (TV, newspapers, Hollyweird, etc.) for the past 100 years. This is not going to be done with a "No-Compromise!" brand of activism. The majority of people will automatically categorize that as "extremism" and ignore it.
The NRA, with all its warts, is part of the solution. Notice I say "part" of the solution, not the whole solution. Don't give up on them completely. Just realize their limitations and work within those limitations. Don't stop criticizing the NRA, either. It is only by criticism that they will learn what they do wrong. By all means, support GOA and the other groups. But also support the NRA. Like it or not, they're the 800lb Gorilla in this marketplace. If you want to have a say on what direction that Gorilla goes, you better be a part of it, rather than just sitting on the sidelines kvetching.
dsmith & Highball, I also AGREE with you guys on Project Exile (who'd have thunk?). I think the NRA is right about enforcing current (Constitutional) gun laws, but it is missing the follow-up response. If Project Exile has been successful then they should be saying, "Look, stop passing all these new gun laws, let's enforce the ones we have and see which ones actually affect the crime rate (with least impact on law-abiding citizens). Then we can repeal the ones that don't!"
That is something that I seldom hear from any pro-gun group when a gun "tragedy" occurs. The media always points out the "loopholes" in the gun laws. Whenever I see one of these "tragedies" reported, the person is usually a repeat felon that shouldn't possess a firearm to begin with, or an underage psychopath that illegally obtained the firearm, THAT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE! The pro-gunners should be the first to say, "The perpetrator violated gun laws x, y, and z, why didn't the authorities do anything to enforce these laws? If they have no intention of enforcing these laws then why do we punish law-abiding citizens by keeping them on the books?"
And I part with some wise words from "The Nuge":
"all goodmen stand by the self evident truths as enumerated in our sacred US Constitution. I do. We salute you for your courageous teaching approach! God & goodmen knows how much we desperately need more of that! stay on course goodsir!! we are with ya!! Plz join the NRA & help upgrade from within, Its the only way!!"
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I think the NRA is right about enforcing current (Constitutional) gun laws
WW,
Could you point out the "Constitutional" gun laws for me, please.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I really don't believe the top people in the NRA have ever READ the Constitution...see, there is a vast difference between being dragged by the scruff of the neck into Tyranny...and willingly leading 4 million people that MIGHT resist into it......
Don't you think ???
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
I think the NRA is right about enforcing current (Constitutional) gun laws
WW,
Could you point out the "Constitutional" gun laws for me, please.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
What pickenup said.
JPFO Life Member
www.jpfo.org
Besides, since background checks are unconstitutional, we don't even need to know if somebody is an illegal or a parolee.
Is that the appropriate NO COMPROMISE response?
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Violent felons need to be dead.
Illegal aliens woud be rounded up and shipped back where they came from...with a chip.The next time they they are picked up..they go to a desert island with a week supply of MRE's..
You have outdone yourself, Highball.
Of course, how will you know if they are illegal when you go to implant the chip? Are you proposing a national ID card? Maybe in your world we will all have chips. Hmmm, sounds awful Orwellian.
[8D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
"Violent felon"..think olden days.When men were still men.
Commit "assualt and battery"..depending on circumstances..get maybe 5 years hard labor.Step out of jail and get your .45 back...
Rape a 5 year old child...30 days later, swing by the neck until dead...
Yes..deport 10 million aliens. No problem at all determining which are illegel..ask any police officer about it.
Sorry,Jack..but chips are not an option for citizens of a free country. As much as you want the entire population of Mexico,,and every other dirtbag country up here, sucking the life out of America..there is a wind starting to whip up here.
I saw a couple middle-class citizens at the last local gunshow...collecting signitures to demand the government close the border..there is indeed a few intelligent people left in America....
Please don't prattle inanly to me about the statue of liberty,and the inscription at the base. First..I would melt her down,and ship it back to the French..Second...there is all the difference in the world between "legal"..and "lets slip across the border"...
Hmm, actually, Highball, I believe you are the one who has proposed implanting electronics and injecting people with truth drugs on the witness stand. I wouldn't say that you are liberal though... sounds more link pinko Commie to me.
quote:"Violent felon"..think olden days.When men were still men.
..and their wives didn't yap so much about gettin knocked around a little? Is that what you mean, Highball?
quote:Yes..deport 10 million aliens. No problem at all determining which are illegel..ask any police officer about it.
I'm all for the deportation, but its the crooked employers that I would get to rat them out, not the cops. I would prefer stopping them at the border in the first place, BEFORE they get in our country, ala the Minutemen. But apparently in your Police State the cops will know everything, right?
quote:Sorry,Jack..but chips are not an option for citizens of a free country. As much as you want the entire population of Mexico,,and every other dirtbag country up here, sucking the life out of America..there is a wind starting to whip up here.
Your vision of a country doesn't sound too free. I don't care what country folks come from as long as they obey our laws and come here LEGALLY. The only wind whipping up is the rotting stench from your foul mouth.
quote:I saw a couple middle-class citizens at the last local gunshow...collecting signitures to demand the government close the border..there is indeed a few intelligent people left in America....
Ya, I see a lot of these blowhards at gunshows too. The true Patriots are walking a dusty border in Arizona and actually DOING something about illegal immigration. Remember, WE are the government, and the Minutemen are proving that!
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Twisting my words into a tortured hell of your own mind makes it impossible to communicate.
My question is: If the person can't be trusted to own a gun and live in a free country, then why are we releasing him from prison? If these individuals are too dangerous to own a gun, they should stay in prison until they are safe.
Besides, since background checks are unconstitutional, we don't even need to know if somebody is an illegal or a parolee.
Is that the appropriate NO COMPROMISE response?
Well, no.
Our military would be guarding the borders, as they are supposed to, and there would be no felons on the streets to commit a firearm crime, because they would be either dead, or in shackles, at hard labor, never to see freedom ever again.
That's no com[promise, my style.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
SO....have we flogged this topic enough yet?
Negative.Altho we have strayed far off the topic of AP..(Yet ANOTHER unConstitutional law..)
As long as there is ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD believing that government should have the power to regulate citizens' Liberty Teeth..the subject has NOT been "flogged enough"...Ignorance should NEVER be tolerated...
Perhaps the problem is that instead of the gentlemanly disagreements that are the norm on the "Gun Rights"..we had some of the riff-raff slip over from next door...? The kind not intelligent enough to argue the facts...and must resort to throwing up handfulls of sh**...hoping some of it actually blows over to get on decent folks ?