TexasCHLforum.com

Letters sent.

Larry Vickers posted a way to send faxes without getting on any mailing lists, etc.
http://www.savem855.com

Rrash wrote:Larry Vickers posted a way to send faxes without getting on any mailing lists, etc.
http://www.savem855.com

Done and shared.

For what it's worth I was walking around Gander Mountain in Round Rock today killing time and they have no shortage of M855. I was actually surprised at just how much they have still. I use XM193 myself but if you like M855, they have a crap-ton still available.

To me this is just opening the door. It really doesn't matter how many of use this type of ammo. i have some, but do not have any special need for it and in fact it is what I use to practice.

What I see is this is "penetrating round" is nothing short of a lie. Almost all rifle ammunition can penetrate body armor. If this is successful and we all set back because it is just "ONE" kind of ammo and I don't use it anyways, etc. . . Here is my question how long before they decide that my Dad's 30/30 is a "penetrating round?"

General Dynamics Ammunition 5.56x45mm NATO 62 Grain SS109 Penetrator Full Metal Jacket available from Midway:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/107953 ... Main_Image" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Majority of House Members sign letter blasting Obama bullet ban proposal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bitter Clinger wrote:Majority of House Members sign letter blasting Obama bullet ban proposal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Big deal. Oblamer and the ATF will ignore it. The GOP will throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, we tried."

carlson1 wrote:To me this is just opening the door. It really doesn't matter how many of use this type of ammo. i have some, but do not have any special need for it and in fact it is what I use to practice.

What I see is this is "penetrating round" is nothing short of a lie. Almost all rifle ammunition can penetrate body armor. If this is successful and we all set back because it is just "ONE" kind of ammo and I don't use it anyways, etc. . . Here is my question how long before they decide that my Dad's 30/30 is a "penetrating round?"

It's like the various laws against "children" buying "pistol ammo." Considering that there are pistols out there that will fire up to .45-70, that pretty much includes everything.

Back in the 70s when NY State snuck in that law, hidden in an unrelated bill passed in the middle of the night with no objections, they left an interesting loophole that was closed later. The law as written said something like "ammunition for handguns," and all of the ammo retailers went right on selling .22 Long RIFLE to kids because that was obviously rifle ammo. They wouldn't sell .22 Long or .22 Short, but .22LR said "rifle" in it, so . . .

The law has since been changed to something much more complicated, but that's New York for you.

Looks like the ATF already made their decision. The new 2014 Regulation Guide, released this January no longer list M855 as exempt for sporting purposes. The public comment period on this ban is over March 16th but the ATF already printed the new rule. Looks like they really didn't want to know what we thought.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1966761

maintenanceguy wrote:Looks like the ATF already made their decision. The new 2014 Regulation Guide, released this January no longer list M855 as exempt for sporting purposes. The public comment period on this ban is over March 16th but the ATF already printed the new rule. Looks like they really didn't want to know what we thought.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1966761

Gee, that's a surprise.

I really can't stand about 3/4 of government appointees, electees and bureaucrats.

Pawpaw wrote:

maintenanceguy wrote:Looks like the ATF already made their decision. The new 2014 Regulation Guide, released this January no longer list M855 as exempt for sporting purposes. The public comment period on this ban is over March 16th but the ATF already printed the new rule. Looks like they really didn't want to know what we thought.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1966761

Gee, that's a surprise.

BATF says that was published in error: http://controversialtimes.com/news/brea ... ing-error/

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

maintenanceguy wrote:Looks like the ATF already made their decision. The new 2014 Regulation Guide, released this January no longer list M855 as exempt for sporting purposes. The public comment period on this ban is over March 16th but the ATF already printed the new rule. Looks like they really didn't want to know what we thought.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1966761

Gee, that's a surprise.

BATF says that was published in error: http://controversialtimes.com/news/brea ... ing-error/

They got caught. I wouldn't expect them to own up to it and say this very thing. Maybe it was an error, but I doubt it.

I thought the lily livered congress was the outfit that passed laws?