5.56 / .223 BATFE ammo ban halted

M885 Round, 5.56 mm (.223)Only one reason: because of pushback.

Of dissension and pushback and protest and writings and objection in the public venue.

Which is why, for example, the current US administration wishes to clamp down on your individual First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Because, without the Second Amendment, there is no such thing as a First Amendment.

This I fervently believe.  As a cop for 41 years and with my concomitant beliefs, I have been quantified as a terrorist — by my federal government — because I believe in our foundational documents to include the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, I am an Oathkeeper.

I revel in my classification as a terrorist because I believe in our foundational documents.  All others are nothing more than pretenders to the throne and above.

Including Barack Hussein Obama, who has an incredibly massive disregard for our national laws.

From UPINews.com:

ATF says it won’t proceed with 5.56mm ammo ban

by Doug G. Ware

WASHINGTON, March 10 (UPI) — After public backlash to a proposal two weeks ago, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday stepped away from a proposal to outlaw the sale of armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition.

Please see my posts here and here.

After announcing the proposal to change the bullet’s exemption status, the bureau solicited public opinion on the matter. Tuesday, in a two-paragraph news release, the agency said it will “not at this time seek to issue a final framework” for the ban — due to the largely critical response from the public.

“Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework,” the bureau said, adding that some of the comments raised issues that warrant further examination.

Common sense won out.  Temporarily.

Trust that Leftists are coming for your firearms.

If they are not now successful, they will never give up.

Plain and simple.

In any way possible.

BZ

 

On the cusp of banning firearms in Fornicalia?

MicrostampingYes.  One federal judge could make all the difference in the world.

From FoxNews.com:

Gun rights groups await judge’s ruling on California’s ‘microstamping’ law

by Malia Zimmerman

California’s gun laws are among the nation’s strictest, but a looming decision in a federal lawsuit could effectively ban handguns altogether in the Golden State, according to plaintiffs who want a judge to toss out a state law requiring all new handguns to be equipped with technology that “stamps” each shell casing with a traceable mark. 

The problem with the “microstamping” law, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 but only took effect in 2013, is that it relies on an unworkable technology, according to gun manufacturers and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation. If guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law is, for practical purposes, a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment, goes the argument.

Thanks Arnold, you blubbering, steroid-ridden baboon.  And all with an (R) at the back of your name, as in (R)apist, for screwing over our Second Amendment.

“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law.

It’s the same reason Ronnie Barrett refuses to sell or service his .50 caliber BMG rifles any more in California, whether they are held by private owners or law enforcement agencies.  Ruger has already stopped selling semi-automatic handguns in Fornicalia.

Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement.Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.

When you, as a Leftist, hate guns, fear guns, and detest the thought of them in the hands of private citizens, you do your very best to eliminate them by any means possible.

This all dovetails.  Why is there a push to control the internet?  To silence DC pushback on various Leftist plans.  Why is there a continuing and unrelenting tsunami to take guns from American citizens?  Because, as with the internet, when you silence citizens you eliminate pushback.  How do you guarantee the average citizen cannot “push back” against the government?  You eliminate the Second Amendment.

Because when you eliminate the Second Amendment you will, by extension, help to eliminate the First Amendment.

Then you truly do have Serfs, Proles and Groundlings in the United States of America.

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to protect hunters.  If you believe that, you are a complete fool.

2011 DeathsThe Second Amendment exists to keep the individual citizen safe from the over-reaching powers of an oppressive government.  And to guarantee free speech.

See anything like that recently?

BZ

 

Appeals court strikes down federal gun law as unconstitutional

US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-SealFrom HumanEvents.com:

by John Hayward

It might not get the news coverage it deserves with everything else going on at the moment, but the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati against a federal gun law is a very big deal.  The court held that the federal ban on gun ownership by people who have been committed to a mental institution is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.  Rulings of that caliber (if you’ll pardon the pun) don’t come down all that often.  The previous instance was the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling against Washington D.C.’s firearms ban in 2008, which those on both sides of the gun control debate would agree was a very big deal.

Today’s ruling was prompted by the efforts of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler to purchase a gun.  His application for a permit was denied because he spent one month in a mental institution, in 1986, due to emotional problems following his divorce.  (According to the background material in the 6th Circuit Court decision, his ex-wife allegedly cleaned out his bank accounts and ran off with another man, leaving Tyler so despondent that he wept incessantly, couldn’t sleep, and had suicidal thoughts.  He was committed for treatment after his fearful daughters called the police.  He never did anything more violent than pound on his own head in despair.)

This is an interesting case as, currently in Fornicalia, state law allows law enforcement officers to confiscate those firearms in possession of persons taken into custody via 5150 W&I — and bars those committed for same from owning firearms.

Of interesting note:

The Wall Street Journal captures some reactions that suggest the Tyler case could have ramifications for other gun laws:

Lucas McCarthy, Mr. Tyler’s lawyer, called the ruling “a forceful decision to protect Second Amendment rights,” and said he hoped it that it would have “a significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

[…] Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they are fit to own guns.

Unusual, these days, when a federal court goes against gun control parameters considering the current temper of the DC times.  Unanimous opinion of the three-member panel is here.

BZ

P.S.

Fornicalia Cop Note: I don’t necessarily disagree with the 5150 portion of CA law.  That said, please read the details of the case.  Tyler’s proscription was from one incident that occurred back in 1986, which would task anyone.