• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

ATF feeling the heat?

GunnyGene

GunnyGene

Racist old man
BANNED
Gee, guys it was all a publishing error and we're sorry for the confusion. Right.

I wonder how all those folks who paid big money for this ammo will feel when they get the news. Reckon they'll be pissed? :D:rolleyes:

Link: https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Publications/notice_of_publishing_error.pdf

NOTICE OF PUBLISHING ERROR
On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework to guide its determination on what ammunition is "primarily intended for sporting purposes" for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on armor piecing ammunition. The posted framework is only a proposal, posted for the purpose of receiving public comment, and no final determinations have been made.
Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, and conclude that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded. This is not the case.
Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any armor piercing ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations was an error which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.
The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.
The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of armor piercing ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree, when there is an exemption and suddenly there isn't, someone omitted the damn thing intentionally. Stuff doesn't just disappear on its' own. Someone physically removed it.

And they need to find out whom, and why, and if anyone (who) told them to.
 
While I don't doubt it, I want to see the paper trail.
 
Perhaps.

But I'd want something in writing if I were making changes.

ANY editor worth their salt would want to see the proofed version prior to print to check it by. And someone would have to provide that, so there's your starting point.
 
John A. said:
Perhaps.

But I'd want something in writing if I were making changes.

ANY editor worth their salt would want to see the proofed version prior to print to check it by. And someone would have to provide that, so there's your starting point.
Click to expand...

Any paper trail would start and end within BATFE, since they already have the authority granted to them by law to add or remove anything that is not explicitly required or denied to them by the law. They could not change the metallic composition definitions for ap on their own for example. The AG could simply call up the Director, and suggest that they look at rescinding the exemption for ss109 because of the AR pistol. That's well within the ATF's authority.
 
Makes one wonder how much else has been changed that no one has caught that will now be the rule. These people cannot be trusted with anything
 
MikeD said:
Makes one wonder how much else has been changed that no one has caught that will now be the rule. These people cannot be trusted with anything
Click to expand...

Exactly. And especially since there is no Congressional Oversight Committee for the BATFE.
 
John A. said:
https://dcpr00gbauvhc.cloudfront.ne...to-atf-director-jones-apa-framework-final.pdf
Click to expand...

I read that a few days ago. Your point being that Goodlatte is Chair of the Judiciary and since ATF is under the AG's office they technically have oversight. True. However, ATF is pretty low on the food chain so doesn't get the kind of attention that his boss does unless they screw the pooch. It probably would not normally have come to the attention of Judiciary, since it was not published in the Federal Register.
 
OhioArcher said:
Don't think I've seen Congress move so quickly on something like this. 236 "additional" signatures on the letter from Goodlatte.
Click to expand...

I'm still not holding my breath. In the last election, we handed Congress to the GOP on a silver platter. The American People gave them a mandate to stop The Great Usurper in his tracks.

So far, they're showing themselves to be a bunch of pantie waist yes men. :mad:
 
Pawpaw said:
I'm still not holding my breath. In the last election, we handed Congress to the GOP on a silver platter. The American People gave them a mandate to stop The Great Usurper in his tracks.

So far, they're showing themselves to be a bunch of pantie waist yes men. :mad:
Click to expand...
I agree and Boehner needs to step aside.
 
I know where Ohio is coming from.

McConnell is my Senator. And really, we have not had another choice in years.

Or at least not a better choice.

It's pretty sad when you don't pick the best choice, you pick the lesser of the two evils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top