Lawless Obama Shreds More Constitutional Protections for Steel Core 5.45x39 Ammo

[tangent4ronpaul]

Frm GOA e-mail:

America was already pretty close to reaching a Kenya-style Third World tinpot dictatorship.

First, it was the VA's efforts to disarm law-abiding military veterans for supposedly being “mental defectives,” even though 18 U.S.C. 922(g) requires “adjudications” and there were none.

Then, it was the ATF's actions to copy 4473's and compile a gun registry, even though 18 U.S.C. 923(g) and other provisions of McClure-Volkmer prohibited that.

Then, it was Obama's moves to illegally require reporting of multiple gun sales ... and feed gun information into a national health database ... and repeal federal privacy laws (HIPAA) ... and try to ban the importation of shotguns.

All without any statutory authority whatsoever.

Now, within the last week, according to the Military Arms Channel Blog, the ATF may be on the verge of banning the importation of steel core 5.45x39 ammunition by regulatory fiat.

According to the website, the rumor stems from an importer who had filed a Form 6 to bring a shipment of 7N6 surplus ammo from Russia. The form approval went well past 2 weeks, which is the normal time frame for a Form 6 to be approved by the ATF.

The importer emailed the ATF to find out what was going on, and received this email response back: "A handgun has now been manufactured that chambers a 5.45x39 round. That now makes steel core 5.45x39 armor piercing under our definition..."

This will not be the first time legal ammunition has been deemed by the ATF to have become mysteriously illegal because a new gun has been created.

Nevertheless, this is certainly a strained and perverted reading of what "armor piercing ammunition" is -- a definition which looks to the metallic content and/or the intended use of the ammunition -- not to all possible uses.

A couple of points need to be made:

(1) First, the heavily-abused "armor piercing ammunition" ban was yet another gun control measure slammed through by Senator Bob Dole with the acquiescence of certain "pro-gun groups."

(2) Second, if anyone wondered why we have fought for almost thirty years to oppose efforts to make the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" much broader, malleable, and subject to abuse, this recent ATF action is their answer.

We have defeated Obama's efforts to rewrite this definition by statute. But it is clear that, if the Obama administration can't get Congress to pass an ammunition ban, it will ban ammunition on its own accord.

ATF will do what ATF will do -- or not.

But it is time for Congress to use the "power of the purse" to stop these repeated exercises to turn both the Constitution and the laws into a roll of toilet paper.

ACTION: Please Take Action and contact your representative. Tell him to reject any ATF spending bill which does not defund ATF's unlawful regulatory activities.

IMPORT BAN ON 7N6 5.45×39
https://www.thebangswitch.com/import...n-7n6-5-45x39/

UPDATE:

Copes Distributing has confirmed that the ATF has in fact shut off the import of 5.45×39 surplus ammo. From a post they made on AR15.com at 3pm today:

Confirmed from the IMPORT BRANCH of the BATFE…Just got off the phone with them….Exact words No more Imports of 5.45×39 Ammo……. Don’t hate me as we are OUT OF STOCK ALREADY….. Just delivering the message…

-t

[ClydeCoulter]

Shall not be infringed, unless armor piercing and/or black and scary looking or has a thing that flips up or has a guard thingy that keeps your hands from burning when the barrel gets hot or any number of other infringements that can be ginned up..

[Uriel999]

To be fair this isn't on Obama. It is pure BAFTE regulations. Apparently somebody made a pistol in 5.45 and then sent it to the ATF for approval. Problem is now a certain round not all 5.45 is going to be restricted from import because libtard laws from the Clinton era banned armor piercing handgun calibers. It is dumb.

[nobody's_hero]

Disarmament by dis-ammo-ment.

[56ktarget]

I guess you guys forgot about the "well-regulated" part...

[tangent4ronpaul]

To be fair this isn't on Obama. It is pure BAFTE regulations.

Considering how O-Bomb-Us has used IRS, EPA, Dept of Edu, etc and signing letters - yeah, I'm placing this solidly in Obama's lap.

-t

[Pericles]

Why one should not rely on out of the US logistics for defense needs.

[Uriel999]

Why one should not relay on out of the US logistics for defense needs.

Yup, my only Russian gun is a Mosin and that is because I wanted a cheap hunting rifle that shoots the cheap 7.62x54R round. I can literally buy 2 crates and have more ammo than I will use for it in my entire lifetime.

For defense: 5.56, 7.62x51 other NATO rounds and rounds incredibly common in America are all one should use.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I guess you guys forgot about the "well-regulated" part...

Nope, these guys certainly wouldn't haven't forgot about that. It does, however, look like you could use a remedial English class to understand what a "present participle" is; to avoid making a fool of yourself here...

Edit: This link may help you understand the sentence structure of the Second Amendment

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

[vickersvimy]

Because countries that have done this are total tin pot dictatorships. In all seriousness though the Second Amendment is outdated. When it was written the weapons were commonly muskets and early rifles. The highest kind of weapon they had were gatling guns and even those came years later. It was a different time and thus different cultural needs. In those times I can certainly see the need - hunting was needed in some areas and there was a danger of a US dictatorship. Heck, only a few years after 1787 the Aliens and Sedition Act was passed. In modern times however a dictatorship isn't likely. Besides the amendments are meant to give some leeway in some cases. The first amendment doesn't cover shouting "fire!" in a theater.

[Uriel999]

Because countries that have done this are total tin pot dictatorships. In all seriousness though the Second Amendment is outdated. When it was written the weapons were commonly muskets and early rifles. The highest kind of weapon they had were gatling guns and even those came years later. It was a different time and thus different cultural needs. In those times I can certainly see the need - hunting was needed in some areas and there was a danger of a US dictatorship. Heck, only a few years after 1787 the Aliens and Sedition Act was passed. In modern times however a dictatorship isn't likely. Besides the amendments are meant to give some leeway in some cases. The first amendment doesn't cover shouting "fire!" in a theater.

Except for the fact that cannons where privately owned and in that time might as well be the equivalent of having a tank in today's terms. It is tyrannical that the government can have something but say we cannot.

[vickersvimy]

Except for the fact that cannons where privately owned and in that time might as well be the equivalent of having a tank in today's terms. It is tyrannical that the government can have something but say we cannot.

Not really. A cannon is much much less powerful than a tank. It wasn't the same thing. A tank is basically heavy artillery on wheels. A cannon is fairly light artillery with a fairly short range.