Federal agencies looking to employ a pincer move designed to ban just about all ammunition from public sale, because if they cannot ban the guns, they opt instead to ban the ammunition that feeds them.
More details and follow-up from the efforts the Obama regime is making to classify .223 ball ammunition as ‘armor piercing’ at the same time we learn the EPA is making moves to ban lead ammunition.
You know, when the Redcoats came to seize the ammunition stores of the Colonists at Lexington and Concord – a war of independence from tyrants resulted. Today, when attempting to do the same thing utilizing a heinous federal bureaucracy, America yawns as plans to disarm them move forward with frightening speed.
The ATF is one side, and the EPA is the other.
(Snippets from this story follow – go to link to read the full article)
As it wanes, the Obama administration grows bold, and even reckless, on matters that send a thrill up the leg of its most leftward supporters. Its new attack on so-called armor-piercing ammunition — which is, in reality, a very broad attack on ammunition across the board — is a dangerous and destructive example of the administration’s late-days slide into rule-by-decree.
…In 1986, Congress revised the Gun Control Act, inserting prohibitions against the manufacture and import of “armor-piercing ammunition.” Armor-piercing ammunition does not mean ammunition designed to defeat body armor — that would be too simple. It means, most broadly, ammunition that could defeat the soft body armor of the sort that was cutting edge in the 1980s. But banning all such ammunition as “armor-piercing” would have meant a ban on practically all hunting rifles…
…So, “armor-piercing” came to mean ammunition made of certain materials (tungsten alloys, steel, etc.) that could defeat certain kinds of body armor and that could be fired from a handgun. …It’s almost as though the agency is reasoning toward some specific, predetermined goal, isn’t it?
…The upshot of all this maneuvering is that the ATF intends to revoke the sporting exemption for certain popular kinds of .223 ammunition, allowing it to be reclassified as armor-piercing and therefore banned, even though it is not designed as armor-piecing ammunition and has no special armor-piercing characteristics. …But the fact that there is a multi-shot handgun commercially available for those non-lead .223 rounds means that such ammunition can be banned as armor-piercing, even though it is not armor-piercing ammunition, by use or by design.
So, everybody goes back to lead, right?
Wrong. Environmental groups have been pressuring the EPA to begin regulating — or to ban outright — lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They lost their most recent round when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate lead ammunition, but when has statutory authority stopped the Obama administration? The FCC has no statutory authority to enact net-neutrality rules — that’s why it has reached back to a 1930s, New Deal–era law for justification. You can be sure that the campaign to use the EPA or other federal agencies to ban lead ammunition is far from over. The U.S. Humane Society already is petitioning the Interior Department to ban lead ammunition on public lands.
What gun-rights advocates fear — not without reason — is that this is the beginning of a pincer movement, with the ATF banning non-lead ammunition as a threat to armor-wearing police officers and the EPA banning lead ammunition as a toxin.
…In a sense, the gun-grabbers were telling the truth when they said that they had no designs on our sporting rifles. But the ammunition for those rifles is another story.