Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Default judgment entered against Harrisburg | Main | 2A CLE in Tucson »

More on declaring "green tip" 5.56 as armor piercing

Posted by David Hardy · 4 March 2015 09:50 AM

Over at Real Clear Policy, Robert VerBruggen has thoughts on the issue.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

SAS 2008 | March 4, 2015 12:41 PM | Reply

If the ATF makes the claim that M855 is considered armor piercing based on what was intended to be considered the "core" of the bullet they need to be called out on it.

In their proposal they make the argument that it doesn't matter what was discussed leading up to the legislation, it only matters what was written into law. That is why any ammo that "may be used" in a handgun can qualify as AP until 18 USC 921 (a)(17)(B)(i). To then argue that M855 was intended to be covered even though the statue clears says the core must be entirely made of steel or other included elements and M855 does not meet that description is hypocritical.

SAS 2008 | March 4, 2015 12:45 PM | Reply

oops "until 18 USC 921 (a)(17)(B)(i)" should be "under 18 ...."

Thatoneguy | March 4, 2015 1:28 PM | Reply

Isn't this an easy win for us? Break out a dictionary and show the idiots the definitions of "Projectile" and "Core"? "The Central part of a missle designed to be fired from a gun" essentially?

Even in the most perverse of definitions of core as "the most important part", wouldn't the round fire if the steel "penetrator" was removed, and not fire if the lead portion was removed?

How is this even a discussion?

Frank P | March 5, 2015 8:52 AM | Reply

It appears the position of the Executive part of the Federal Government today, as represented by the BATFE in this case, is exactly the opposite position of the Executive part of the Federal Government as argued in King v. Burwell, at the Supreme Court just yesterday.

How can one part of the government argue both sides of the same idea in the same week? Oh, in both cases they are arguing for the expansion of their own power!

rmgill | March 5, 2015 5:24 PM | Reply

Dave have you seen this? John Monroe's letter to ATF disputing their ability to designate M855 as AP.

http://georgiacarry.com/national/M855_ammo/Comments_of_GCO.pdf

Leave a comment