Replacing the LEOPA; Something for Everyone

[barnbwt]

**Let me preface this by politely asking anyone about to type "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to please at least read the following paragraph before posting

The purpose of my spitballing is not to greatly expand our projectile options, nor to punish the BATFE, nor to "go along to get along" with those who want the AR15 straight-up banned; the purpose is to replace the mess we've got with language that is clear, precise, enforceable, accomplishes what the original statute intended (whether you agree with it or not), and most importantly leaves little to no room for expansion or interpretation. From a solid foundation, we can then work to educate the public/police on how armor piercing ammo is no significant threat, and a needless restriction that is at its root completely arbitrary. I'd like to get something with at least some level of support from my fellow gun-peers framed up before presenting it to a bunch of (pro and anti) reps, orgs, and bloggers as a possible solution.

Normally I'm a strong believer in avoiding compromise on gun issues since they are almost always traps presented to us by the ignorant/malicious. But this particular LEOPA law is one that doesn't seem to serve any side of the issue very well;
-it allows for true AP ammo in rifles (which are increasingly indistinguishable from pistols) so it doesn't 'ban AP ammo'
-it doesn't restrict all or even most ammo capable of defeating armor so it can't protect police
-it doesn't restrict most civilian ammo options appreciably at the end of the day
-it doesn't give the ATF a clear road map of what they're even supposed to do to enforce the thing
-it doesn't provide a very clear letter of the law for gun owners and manufacturers to follow, and the pistol/rifle provision makes it easy to become a violator unknowingly

Basically, it seems to me that a simplification of language and use of measurable criteria would serve everyone's interests to some degree. At least better than what we have now. And that's important when getting people to cooperate with something they don't fully endorse.

****************

Background
Presently, the statute is composed of two parts; the first lists materials that are prohibited in any quantity from monolithic cores (or 'projectile elements' in the BATFE's eyes), the second restricts bullet construction to 'pistol' rounds with thin/deformable jackets. True to typical congressional form, practically every operative word in the statute is subject to regulatory interpretation; nowhere is there a clear definition for; core, pistol round, jacket, and the minimum caliber restriction is not accurate enough (significant digits) to properly describe a bullet typically measured in thousandths of an inch.

It is clear the original intent was to ban handgun bullets that are harder or more rigid than the norm, the thinking being their purpose is to shear a plug of material through hard barriers (and to be fair, this is more or less accurate for specifically-armor-piercing bullets). Lots of talk of effectiveness on police armor and whatall, but that's not the bill that was passed. Anything over ~1500ft/s starts rapidly defeating fibrous armor since the fibers can't react/stretch fast enough to dissipate the energy. The fact that most/all widely used cartridges associated with rifles far exceed this level, and the lack of velocity standards in the original law, suggest that ballistics cannot be a determining factor in classifying armor piercing bullets for restriction. Non-sensical, I know, but when it is not practicable to restrict ammo based on its performance, the next option is to look for clear design intent.

So what options do we have to make a clear, workable law that satisfies the objective? The original writers were on the right track, turns out; materials and construction. They just weren't gunnies or engineers, so they went crazy from there on. Bronze, brass, steel, and iron were banned simply because they could be hardened to piercer-levels and often were, even though non-armor piercing ammo can easily be constructed with them that is both cheaper and less toxic than lead.

Part One: Bullet Materials
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles*, regardless the caliber/weight/chambering, using specific hardening/kinetics-enhancing elements above trace levels: Beryllium, Tungsten, and Uranium (and any other heavy/hard elements seen only in purpose-designed armor-piercing/kinetic penetrator bullets that we care to add at the time of passage)

Part Two: Bullet Construction
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles, regardless caliber/weight/chambering, containing a material produced at a hardness in excess of 200 Brinell (approx. 4130 normalized, "barrel steel" --or whatever other threshold we care to set) at the time of firing**

Part Three: Exemptions
-The Attorney General shall make an exemption for any projectile (not cartridge; NFA already has that provision) deemed acceptable for legitimate civilian purposes or in common use***. Use of non-exempt projectiles meeting the above criteria as armor piercing may not be used on animal or human targets (so good for practice only, as the existing supply depletes) with some tacked-on penalty applied if you are caught doing so, even in a "good shoot" situation.

Potential impact:
Well, we'd get a lot of the non-AP mild steel core ammo back, and finally some cheap lead-free options (that may actually outpace lead-based options for plinking ammo soon thereafter). We'd also lose things like hardened aluminum-core SS190 5.7x28 ammo, sintered hard-bronze frangibles and saboted ring-airfoil rounds --unless exempted by the AG, as some would be. Projectile development towards harder materials like ceramics and composites would also suffer, at least in the civilian sector. Anyone possessing ammo at present would be totally uninhibited in their use or sale of it, provided the use is not for defense or hunting (the purpose of the law is to preclude it from the former, common decency to animals precludes its use for the latter)

Thoughts? Constructive thoughts? Any possible implications I may not be aware of, or did not account for properly? Any items you'd like included? Tips/tricks/contacts for getting the proposal in the hands of those who could actually do something with it?

TCB

*i.e. not heavi-shot. Also, the term "rifling-stabilized" is subjective, but already falls under BATFE discretion for NFA determinations of the firearms that'd be firing these things. I don't think the term's inclusion would allow for discretion they do not already have. "Stabilized" seems overly broad, but its scope would cover fin-stabilized projectiles; probably not an issue since we don't often see those outside smoothbore applications that don't factor in here.
**so they can't go and measure the hardness after the round has impacted on something and cold-worked itself, and so we can't age-harden the bullet after assembling the cartridge
***Allows for expansion of usable projectile classes if technology advances faster than the regulators. "Deemed" may allow too much leeway here, but there does need to be some room for the AG to add or be forced to add by court order, exemptions as they become applicable.

 

[rogerjames]

As far as I'm concerned, the current LEOPA explanation is quite clear. It doesn't need to be altered. ATF clearly tried to ignore the statutes and convince the ignorant that the statutes are unclear.

The only thing that needs to be replaced or altered is the ATF.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

So this would effectively ban all 'real' AP projectiles. I'd take a pass on that for starters. The 1986 law is a rotten law from the word go and was spawned in the pre-internet days when the media had a monopoly on propaganda and the NRA (& ect.) wasn't as on game as now. It is probably for the better not to revisit it in any legislative sense. The down side for us could be horrific. There is no practical way to prevent someone with serious intent on popping through body armor if they set their mind to it. This is the message we need to hammer home to the non-gun public at large.

 

[barnbwt]

As far as I'm concerned, the current LEOPA explanation is quite clear.

This latest fracas is kind of proof that it's not. The law really doesn't have provisions for dealing with multi-part cores; it just assumes they have to be monolithic. "Solid steel core" in and of itself does not specify everything inside the jacket as a whole, or a single discrete part therein. Now, logic dictates the latter definition is way too broad an interpretation, but that's the opening the ATF is exploiting. I'd just as soon not give it to them in the first place if we can (repealing the law is the most direct route, but is that a realistic expectation at this time?)

The only thing that needs to be replaced or altered is the ATF.

Yeah, but is that really realistic? Or even unlaughable? I think we should hold off on our move to see if the ATF-destruction proposal in congress goes anywhere (it won't; it never does), but we should have something capable of passage at the ready, too. We were so disciplined and rigid after Newtown that when the anti's hit us hard, their activist organs were completely broken (which is why MDA et. al. have been worse than useless; direct injection of Bloom bucks have had more practical effect on policy). This latest move shows the anti's have exhausted all options for passing legislation except in a few very friendly states, along with more and more judicial bodies, and can only use Executive regulatory maneuvers at this point. Are we similarly constrained? If not, why do we not press our advantage and reclaim some territory for once?

So this would effectively ban all 'real' AP projectiles.I'd take a pass on that for starters.

Glad you get it (and if you think what I've proposed actually accomplishes that, then I've done good so far)

The 1986 law is a rotten law from the word go and was spawned in the pre-internet days when the media had a monopoly on propaganda and the NRA (& ect.) wasn't as on game as now.

I also think an AP ban is unneeded, but we kind of do have one on the books already; a crummy one at that. Should it not be improved if repeal is not currently in the cards (if ever)?

It is probably for the better not to revisit it in any legislative sense. The down side for us could be horrific.

How, exactly? Like you said, we're more informed, united, mobilized, and reactive than ever before. A midnight close-call voice vote with no notice won't cut the mustard these days, not with all the pro-gun voices in congress looking to show off what nasty gun-grabbers the administration is. '86 was thirty years ago; times have changed enormously for our side. There are risks, but let's think about what they would likely be and how likely they would actually come to pass; it's not like an amendment for an AWB would get 'missed' or anything. The worst case, as I see it, would happen if they start dropping the hardness scale without thinking (they can't add steel/iron/copper to the metals list; those are common jacket materials. Bronze, maybe, and even that's a stretch), and good lobbyists could prevent that. More importantly, vocal and disciplined gun owners will prevent that; FOPA has poisonous elements added because the NRA wanted so badly to complete the deal they'd brokered that they/congress fell for a hard sell. Stubborn, attentive, and LOUD gun owners would prevent this from reoccurring.

I suspect the very worst that would happen is the bill doesn't get a floor vote.

They've got us so scared to change the status quo they foisted on us in the first place, they've won already. Nothing ventured, nothing ever gained, and fortune favors the bold since they get to react sooner. That's why we fail in compromises when we come to the anti's table to hammer out a deal. I'm not sure we've ever even tried to do the opposite (I'm not sure FOPA even qualifies here, Registry closure or not)

There is no practical way to prevent someone with serious intent on popping through body armor if they set their mind to it. This is the message we need to hammer home to the non-gun public at large.

Oh, by all means, I agree. But 'AP ammo' is like 'machine guns' --always gonna be a hard sell to the mainstream. True AP is already fairly rare and always expensive; it truly is an exotic/boutique realm of ammunition. At least if we change the statutory language, we can tailor its jurisdiction to match that small niche, and leave stuff like bulk 7n6 and steel-core 7.62x39 & 9mm alone.

TCB

 

[woodweasel58]

In some respects I agree, except that right now POTUS is jabbing Congress and every Freedom loving Intelligent American Citizen in the eye with a sharp stick, and he keeps finding creative ways to do it. Now he's going to the great UN to prevent the Senate from ratifying a secretive Treaty with Iran. Maybe if we give them a bit more time and dig out the historical evidence to remind Congress and maybe more of the , as Democrats call us stupid americans, or as I refer to our fellow citizens, SHEEPLE, maybe we can get enough support to repeal NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 along with LEOPA. I realize how unrealistic this sounds, however I am 57 this yr and I can't describe how unbelievable events are getting and he seems to be oblivious or up to his eyeballs.

 

[Comrade Mike]

"Deemed acceptable for legitimate civilian purposes or in common use"

Dangerous language. This sounds like we're asking for permission to exercise our rights. Nothing should have to be "deemed acceptable" by the higher ups.

 

[hso]

LEOPA can be better Anit-proofed more simply, and probably successfully, if we get Senator Moynihan's original language of "designed and intended to be fired from a handgun" back into LEOPA. That would be more difficult for the minority party to oppose using the language of one of their party lions and would put all rifle ammunition out of the reach of LEOPA.

 

[barnbwt]

"LEOPA can be better Anit-proofed more simply, and probably successfully, if we get Senator Moynihan's original language of "designed and intended to be fired from a handgun" back into LEOPA. "
I would agree, except the ATF has successfully obfuscated the pistol/rifle issue so utterly. There's also the issue of brass and steel being banned at present, which is wholly unnecessary even for the law's misguided purpose. Would a new 223 projectile really be classifiable as a rifle round with all the pistols out there at this time? What if it was load-optimized for short pistol barrels? What about an identical ammo without that marketing language? It's a distinction without a difference, and therefore bad law.

Remember that the mere way you use something is being argued as "design" by the ATF.

"Dangerous language. This sounds like we're asking for permission to exercise our rights. Nothing should have to be "deemed acceptable" by the higher ups."
Yeah, it's the most squishy part, I agree. But how else do you give the Bureau discretion to exempt bullets that would be otherwise banned. What about those you can't define since they don't yet exist? I figured trying to sketch out a process for defining case by case approval would be more likely to have exploitable language.

TCB

 

[hatt]

First off. Please explain why civilians shouldn't be allowed "Restrict from civilian production and import...purpose-designed armor-piercing/kinetic penetrator bullets?" What are you basing this on? A literal reading of the 2nd Amendment would support having access to such things. The way to "fix" these laws is to have them overturned, not replace them with other arbitrary laws. If you concede that ammo designed to penetrate armor can be restricted for some reason, you also concede that ammo that penetrates by accident should also be looked at, for the same reason.

 

[hso]

Remember that the mere way you use something is being argued as "design" by the ATF.

Perhaps we should find a way to quash their sort of doublespeak by saying "initially designed and intended". Eating the elephant a bite at a time is the most likely successful approach when pro-2A politicians don't control the House, Senate and POTUS.

hatt, you gotta pick the battles you can win instead of going for the whole enchilada when you're unlikely to succeed attempt. This is a war, not just a single battle and each incrimental gain we make puts us in better position for the next so that we advance our cause instead of loosing in an effort we can't win.

 

[barnbwt]

"First off. Please explain why civilians shouldn't be allowed "Restrict from civilian production and import...purpose-designed armor-piercing/kinetic penetrator bullets?" What are you basing this on? A literal reading of the 2nd Amendment would support having access to such things. The way to "fix" these laws is to have them overturned, not replace them with other arbitrary laws."
Please read my post; I'd really appreciate it. There is no reason to think we are in a place to demand what you propose at this time.

So what can we do?

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"Perhaps we should find a way to quash their sort of doublespeak by saying "initially designed and intended"."
I like that a lot better, though I suspect the difference in practice isn't much (AG will still exempt only what he feels like). Can an AG constrain a future AG, by making exemptions permanent? Probably a provision stating unequivocably that no ammo not meeting these standards can be restricted or exempted (doubt itncouod hurt) from AP regs.

TCB

 

[hatt]

hatt, you gotta pick the battles you can win instead of going for the whole enchilada when you're unlikely to succeed attempt. This is a war, not just a single battle and each incrimental gain we make puts us in better position for the next so that we advance our cause instead of loosing in an effort we can't win.

We're better off with the current stuff than fighting for new conciliatory laws that are still unconstitutional. No telling what will be inserted into any new law. I'm sure you remember how the Firearm Owners Protection Act banned machine guns. Opening a can of worms to try and "fix" a narrow issue is folly. My post was in reference to the OP's plan. I like your idea of clarifying the original intent of the law. That little specific bit could be attached to some unrelated bill, mixed in with the pork. I don't trust the current clowns in DC to overhaul anything important.

 

[woodweasel58]

I have no problem with measures to protect the law enforcement members from the idiots out there. None of us will trust politicians after what the meaning of the word "is" is. Maybe some sort of panel made up of law enforcement, lawmakers, citizens, active Military, NRA. Better yet keep it out of the hands of government officials. A group of firearm smart hopefully agenda free, other than common sense, people chosen to review and make the determination or classifications if it's AP. If it should be banned, if there should be exemptions. What if they get paid off, or become bleeding heart gun banners, won't do anything so gun haters always attack for not doing job, heck I don't know what the answer is. But I sure as hell don't like the ones our congress keep coming up with keep thinking.

 

[barnbwt]

Would ya'll support an outright repeal of the NFA/GCA & BATFE? Because if you wanna see a proposal ripe for a traitorous backroom deal, then put up a super-high-stakes measure no side can afford to lose on.

This terror of doing anything through the legislature is really quite paralyzing. Unless we return punches, we're in the position of having to defeat every proposal thrown at the wall, ad infinitum, just to maintain the compromised ground we have left. How long will our resolve last, with no substantial victories? The US is only going to continue to urbanize, after all; can't count on the sane rural areas to hold back the tide forever.

"A group of firearm smart hopefully agenda free, other than common sense, people chosen to review and make the determination or classifications if it's AP"
That's called an expert regulatory body. That's what the ATF Tech Branch is. That they aren't always capable or sane, is due to the inefficiency & incompetence of government. The LEOPA was written by a Texan and New Yorker who (IIRC) were both ex-cops. Sure enough, neither knew good statute language from a hole in the ground, but both claimed moral authority on the issue and others took them at their word.

"I don't know what the answer is. But I sure as hell don't like the ones our congress keep coming up with keep thinking."
"Our" congress isn't the one coming up with stupid proposals. It's the anti's that always have a bag full of cure-alls to peddle whenever there's an ear to bend. To be honest, it's a very rare thing to see any pro-gun bill proposed, let alone passed. It's far more profitable (as I see plainly in the responses to this thread) for our pols to simply resist change of any sort, even toward a less-restrictive direction. Maybe if we pitched good proposals to our reps and organizations ourselves, we'd be prepared with our own bills when the opportunity presents itself. It's been 30 years since the last significant pro-gun legislation was passed (FOPA). Handguns have the most favorable public standing now, that they've had in over 100 years (if ever). Semi-autos, too.

"We're better off with the current stuff than fighting for new conciliatory laws that are still unconstitutional. No telling what will be inserted into any new law."
You do know courts are no guarantee, either, right? Should we abandon them as well (along with fielding a prez-candidate next year --after all, he's just gonna go all anti-gun crazy-pants and betray us, anyway)

"I'm sure you remember how the Firearm Owners Protection Act banned machine guns."
Yup, it was a short notice disputed voice vote at night conducted by one Charles Rangel, who then refused a counted vote, that got the Registry closed. Ronald Reagan "helped"
There were a number of reasons this deceit was tolerated, and none apply now;
-Today's partisan congress would never give someone like Rangel that kind of power during the amending process. Amendments have bedeviled both sides since we've polarized, and are the main source of mistrust in Washington.
-Republican Fudds readily abandoned the tiny constituency of machinegun owners. Gun owners and Reps are more educated on MGs and the NFA, now, and ammo affects all shooters.
-The NRA was heavily invested in the passage of FOPA. It had a lot of good pro-gun stuff that was highly opposed by Anti's. This not only meant that Republicans were susceptible to a "hard sell" like the Hughes Amendment at the last moment, but that the anti's would be determined to try something like Rangel's trick. A bill that's closer to neutral (or small potatoes) for both sides like what I'm trying to propose would be less likely to illicit foolish actions on both sides. If it fails, it's not the end of the world; so if an unfavorable change is required to get majority support, it would be allowed to die. To be honest, the Dems would be dogged at trying to get any law called "armor piercing" passed, regardless what it contained, as a way to show results for all the anti's money/lobbying; it wouldn't surprise me if getting steel core & solids back would be tolerated so long as they get to call the bill "gun control" in their speeches.

FOPA law was otherwise beneficial, and legitimately made life easier/safer for the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners. The loss of new/cheap machineguns is frustrating; the protections we got in the process have kept countless peoples' lives from being ruined outright. Keep some perspective. FOPA is why we don't have a formal, searchable, and publicly-accepted firearms registry (that can be used as evidence in a court of law; whatever the ATF has now must remain in the shadows, which blunts its threat greatly), and why it is possible to drive through NY/etc. to another free state without having to mail your guns or risk imprisonment. "Perfect vs. Good" is an old cliché, but it really does apply here. The true outrage of the Hughes Amendment is simply that its late/sneaky addition meant we didn't get anything in exchange (and that Rangel utterly perverted the Senate to pull it off; not even Reid had the stones to ram O-Care amendments through on a voice vote)

TCB

 

[hatt]

-Today's partisan congress would never give someone like Rangel that kind of power during the amending process.

I do not think you follow current events. Maybe watch MSNBC for your political news? Rs are going along with everything Obama proposes. They may pander slightly to the "base" but at the end of the day they go right along. I'll stick by my earlier thought about not trusting these clowns with anything big. If R voters ever decide to start voting for people with sense and a backbone I may change my views.

 

[benEzra]

The law really doesn't have provisions for dealing with multi-part cores; it just assumes they have to be monolithic.

It makes no such assumption; it exempts cores containing a significant amount of lead. If you look at what the law intended to ban (KTW, THV), that was intentional, in part to prevent projectiles like M855 from being banned. The "core", singular, of a bullet is the part inside the jacket, whether monolithic or composite. Likewise, the exemption of .22 caliber projectiles from the jacket rule covers *all* .22's, centerfire and rimfire, not just "rimfires under 40 grains".

The law banned what it was intended to ban, and nothing else. It is now being stretched to ban things it was written to protect.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My thought experiment a couple weeks ago: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774906
Basically add a presumption that everything with a case length of 33 or 34mm or larger is "rifle ammo"

Mike

 

[barnbwt]

"it exempts cores containing a significant amount of lead"
That's assuming "core" in the statute refers to the entirety of what's inside the jacket; not any particular component parts. That's the ATF's argument, and honestly, the law isn't unequivocally clear on that account. That means you have both reductionist and expansionist interpretations, and have to rely on precedent to convince people to go with one over the other.

Devil's advocate; what stops a lead-core round from incorporating a hardened tungsten rod-penetrator, if you can't count the item as a core made entirely of prohibited materials? Such a round is undeniably as armor-piercing as anything, yet the vague language wouldn't necessarily cover it, right? Likewise, a mild-steel tipped ball round like M855 with only the most marginal of armor-piercing enhancement over jacketed lead can be argued (perhaps not very convincingly) as being armor-piercing to those so inclined. Now, the implications of allowing a part to ban the whole are clear (any non monolithic bullet would be affected) but that doesn't set the meaning of the law itself. The law's intent is secondary to its text.

"Basically add a presumption that everything with a case length of 33 or 34mm or larger is "rifle ammo""
The problem is such an extension is just as arbitrary as our present utterly-subjective definitions. I'll grant that it's at least clear, which is an improvement, but why not 32mm, or 35mm? What about in the future if powder/tech advances allow for ultra-short action rifle-power rounds? As we all know, there is a solid continuum from 22 Short derringer up to semi-auto 50cal belt fed at this point, and the ballistic capabilities at any particular spot are expanding every day. Makes it hard to get everyone to agree to a set boundary. Heck, the ATF's even exempted that continuum past what the 34 NFA allows, in the form of your big game rounds. A kinetic energy (or momentum) threshold would at least remain physically the same across all potential advances. My pitch was to modify the law to be simply a ban on specific exotic materials (dense/hard ones) and a hardness threshold, applicable to all cartridges --we'd lose uranium-core 50cal, but it's not like that's a thing, anyway (or would ever be likely to be one)

TCB

 

[hatt]

My thought experiment a couple weeks ago: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774906
Basically add a presumption that everything with a case length of 33 or 34mm or larger is "rifle ammo"

Mike

Except that many handgun cases are longer than 33 or 34 mm. Your clarification does nothing but add confusion.

 

[barnbwt]

Ways we could try to categorize ammo:
1) Named Chamberings
2) Casing Length
3) Powder Volume
4) Energy (or momentum, or plain velocity)
5) Max Pressure
6) Caliber
7) Bullet Weight
8) Bullet Material
9) Physical Bullet Construction (Jackets, cores, rods, tips, tracers, sabots, etc.)
10) Design Purpose (stated or inferred, AP or no, pistol or rifle)
11) Bullet Hardness
12) Bullet Density
13) Bullet performance in a standard test
14) ?

Think about how many of these have more variations than you can shake a stick at. Those are the ones that will be impossible to get a majority to agree to any given threshold. Even bullet construction has a zillion permutations, and still more yet to be invented. Design purpose is the one the ATF is seeking to usurp, since it gives them the discretion to ban practically everything. But there is a fairly short list of materials we've made bullets from, and a shorter list of those associated with AP rounds. Hardness is a continuous variable like caliber, but certain values correspond to physical materials, like normalized steel, and are therefore much like the materials themselves which one can factually argue are associated with AP ammo or not.

Whatever we do, our goal needs to be getting steel enshrined in the law as an acceptable bullet material. Hardened steel will be a no go so long as there is a LEOPA, but we'd at least have access to cheap and lead free practice ammo again. The anti's realize this much, which is why they are seeking to force us into using lead-based ammo; they know that lead will progressively become more 'evil' in the public eye.

TCB

 

[hatt]

It would seem easier to simply clarify what a handgun is. And state that rifles without stocks are not handguns for purposes of this law.

 

[barnbwt]

That's what we have now. From single shot 22 short derringer to a semi-auto M2HB, there's pretty much continuous, quantum variation. Pistol and rifle really do overlap in practice and design; they can't be separated as clearly as the law requires. To do so results in arbitrary rules and confusion, exploited by those who enforce them.

TCB

 

[hatt]

Pistol and rifle really do overlap in practice and design

Show them. The only round I can think of that blurs the line is the 5.7. Everything else is pretty clear cut.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Except that many handgun cases are longer than 33 or 34 mm. Your clarification does nothing but add confusion.

Really? It may not be perfect but how it is "confusing", esp. compared to the mess we have now?

Do you think the .454 Casull or 500 S&W is a practical threat to Law Enforcement for which we would have to limit bullet construction?

I'd be more concerned about the risk of a rifle cartridge being over regulated then your apparent concern about a pistol cartridge being under-regulated.

As flawed as the LEOPA and it's intent are, a case length limit of 34mm would apply to everything small and concealable a criminal might carry up to and including .357 and .44 Magnum while protecting even the shortest of MSR chamberings (300 BLK) from AP regulation. I don't just want to protect M855, but I want to bring back 7N4, match and hunting solids (including steel hunting solids and the tungsten carbine hunting solids Speer used to sell) too.

Given the current public and political awareness of the blurred lines between pistol and rifle ammo vs the intent of the LEOPA, I think a simple case length rule would not be a hard sell. It is very compatible with original intent.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather scrap LEOPA all together if it were politically viable, but this would totally defang it.

I'm sure you remember how the Firearm Owners Protection Act banned machine guns. Opening a can of worms to try and "fix" a narrow issue is folly.

Do you regard the abuses of the ATF in the late 70s and early 80s, the prohibition on the interstate sale of long arms, the prohibition on interstate sale of ammunition to non-FFLs, recording and reporting of ammo sales, the computerizing 4473s into a registry, and interstate travel as "narrow issues" or "folly"? Even an NFA collector like myself feels that the FOPA was a huge gain for our side even with Hughes' last minute poison pill. I think you are misremembering and romanticizing the "good old days" when you needed an FEL to possess more than 5lb of black powder.

It would seem easier to simply clarify what a handgun is. And state that rifles without stocks are not handguns for purposes of this law.

Yea . . . not can of worms there . . . I'll bite . . . What's a rifle then? Are you even thinking about this or are you just a reflexive naysayer?

Mike