Replacing the LEOPA; Something for Everyone

[barnbwt]

"Show them. The only round I can think of that blurs the line is the 5.7. Everything else is pretty clear cut."
22LR, 357mag, 500 S&W. The first has "rifle" in its name, but the latter two are vastly more powerful, and in the case of 357mag, as comfortable in lever guns as revolvers.

Then you got 30 Carbine, which has "carbine" in the name, but which has been chambered in more handguns than rifles at this point (guesstimating there). Finally, there's 5.56 NATO, which M4 short barrel rifle configurations basically turned into a submachinegun round --a field closely associated with pistols. As you mentioned, 5.7x28, which is was designed to be both a pistol and rifle round by the NATO spec that commissioned it.

Lastly, there's that continuity thing I keep alluding to. Design a 5.8x28 for a pistol, and a 5.75x27 for rifle, and spec the chambers to overlap in dimensions (7.62x25 Tokarev vs 7.63x25 Mauser vs a hot-rodded wildcat variant with much higher pressures only suitable for rifles)

There's even 45-70 revolvers, now, so I assume solid brass or steel-core 45-70 is a no-go. Not to mention every permutation of Thompson Center multi-caliber products, whose market presence doesn't result in every standardized chambering being restricted[/I]...solely due to the discretion of our Attorney General, who --for now-- has the opinion that single shot pistols have a legitimate sporting use, and should not be considered when determining handgun availability.

The whole ordeal with SIG brace was instrumental in showing gun owners just how arbitrary and ridiculous the distinction between pistol and rifle has become. The last thing we need to be doing is encouraging that kind of legal lunacy.

Found this online;

AR-15, without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

This list does not include complete different uppers like the FN 5.7 or the one that shoots .410 shotgun, crossbow bolts or bolt action uppers like the 50BMG

Every one of those chamberings is just a single chopped barrel (from the factory) away from being restricted. Bullets like Nosler Partitions that have more jacket material than usual could become affected (smaller diameters especially).

I know that so long as we have access to some sort of FMJ and deforming/fragmenting bullets in whatever caliber, we'll still be able to shoot and shoot a lot. But the same can be said for bans on large magazines and bayonet lugs; the fact is we'd have less freedom to conduct ourselves peacefully than before. And with nothing positive to show for it, to boot.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"Really? It may not be perfect but how it is "confusing", esp. compared to the mess we have now?"
I agree a measurement threshold would be easy to follow, understand, and enforce. In that it would be an improvement. The trouble is on settling on one, I'm afraid. It's like magazine bans; do we go with 15 rounds or 10? Why not 7? Will they complain too loudly if we go with 5, or is six the best we can get (for now)?

Not to mention the impact it could have on technology. We could easily have a pistol-equivalent of the micro-magnum craze, that gets super high pressure, overbore, high velocity needle rounds in handguns. Not only would bullet options be limited for these wildcats (i.e. no pulled FMJ bullets), but the new "high power armor-defeating school-killer rounds" would be just as ripe for more encroachment as the existing statute has shown itself to be. We've already seen this exact scenario with regards to the 5.7x28; no reason to believe 22TCM is right behind it on the list.

I'm not optimistic we could even settle on a hardness rating, which is why I couched it in terms of common steel hardness so as to reduce the potential choices to select (similarly, this is why I think we all probably could agree to a list of prohibited substances, since there's only a handful to choose from in the first place)

A dash of perspective to also keep in mind;
The whole point of trying to force us into using large diameter, slow moving bullets that are less effective on armor is to stunt technological development in civilian firearms. That's it. It'd be like a 1908 ban on smokeless powder, because that new-fangled Cordite was capable of penetrating paddy wagons that had been armored against 32 S&W. Just like the inevitable ban on high-energy or non-metallic weapons of any sort (lasers are already banned, rail guns will be as well the instant they start to look practical) will keep us relegated to the ancient technology of firearms made from metal.

It will be as much of an issue decades from now, as if we'd been left with only the flintlocks of the Revolution the anti's are so fond of.

TCB

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Just so there is no confusion: I am proposing any cartridge over a certain length be presumed to be exempt. I'm not proposing any limitation of cartridges allowed for hanguns! From the responses it's not clear to me that that is understood.

Mike

 

[hatt]

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

I was thinking a little screwy when I posted. Your solution may have some merit.

 

[hatt]

barnbwt, I'm going to have to bow out of your thread. I'm never going to support any new law with any restrictions on civilian ownership of ammo like you're proposing. On the face of it I wouldn't support it and by the time someone inserted some other nonsense we'd have a disaster like all other gun bills before it. No use arguing about details.

 

[tyeo098]

Why don't we just make it a crime to shoot a cop with an armour piercing round?

Why don't we just make shooting cops illegal?

...why dont we make shooting anyone illegal without justification?

TCB- You're the last person I expected this to come from you feelin' alright?
I kinda like the ability tol roll my own 7.62x25 tungsten sabots. Makes good for quick anti-materiel usage.

 

[barnbwt]

Apologies for the long posts. Unfortunately, it takes a lot more words to outline and defend a legitimate position than it does to reject it out of hand. Such is language, so please bear with me

Why don't we just make it a crime to shoot a cop with an armour piercing round?

Why don't we just make shooting cops illegal?

...why dont we make shooting anyone illegal without justification?

Because we stupidly passed a law back in the '80's that purported to ban armor piercing pistol bullets, but failed to properly define "armor," "piercing," "pistol," or "bullets." We're where we are now, because we allowed a bunch of Brady Bunch crumb-munchers* and Porky's (LEO Fudds) the chance to dictate terms in legislation. Now, we don't the luxury of standing on pure principle to accomplish anything; that time passed neigh-on thirty years ago when we allowed this infringement. To get what we want now, we either need overwhelming numbers to force congress to do what it never does (repeal laws), or chip away at the existing restrictions with sufficiently palatable modifications. I'd like to think we could pull off the former, but there'll never be enough ammo or gun ranges for all Americans to become dedicated gunmen devoted to their preservation.

I don't claim my proposal is a panacea or ultimate destination; just an improvement over the status quo. I know we've had the terms "compromise" and "third option" thrown at us so many times by ignorant, hateful scumbags, that there is very little trust. Who am I kidding; there is no trust left. However, I'm not proposing this as an ignorant anti-gun hack baiting gun owners with a reprieve from berating mothers (for now). I am offering what I think to be a legitimate improvement of the situation for everyone involved. A clearer, more fairly enforceable standard, that also does a better job accomplishing the task it set out to do in the first place.

The law is supposed to ban AP ammo; it does not. Love it or hate it, them's the facts. It instead bans a lot of non-AP ammo, restricting our options needlessly, while still permitting the use/manufacture of the proverbial tungsten-rod penetrator you describe, so long as the gun isn't a (poorly-defined) "pistol" or usable in the same. The current rule about single target guns not 'counting' for this purpose is solely the ATF's whim; it will disappear when they feel like getting rid of 308, 30-06, 8mm, 7mm, 6.5mm, 50cal, and any other cartridge someone's built a pistol in (which is all of them). The fact that any cartridge can fit into any gun of sufficient size --which is not a criteria for it being a pistol-- proves that you cannot differentiate between "rifle" and "pistol" cartridges. We are in peril so long as we keep up that façade.

Sorry guys, but whether it comports with the 2nd Amendment or not, "evil cop-killer bullets" is too easy a sell to repeal at this point. If ever. Case in point, I'm not aware of any serious effort to repeal LEOPA after this mess; just one even more pie-in-the-sky 'plan' to disband the ATF (but not the laws it enforces) courtesy of a blowhard senator. Unlike a lot of folks content to fester with what they have and complain how they've been wronged by tyrants, I'd rather do something to ameliorate the situation.

Personally, I think that by far the biggest problem with the current law is the latitude the ATF can claim in enforcing it. Vague, undefined language, and sloppily implied intent do not properly constrain an enforcement body. So I've written my proposal not as an attempt to significantly expand our current access to AP ammo --since that was never the purpose of this (mistakenly) popular law-- but to more explicitly describe what exactly constitutes armor piercing ammunition, and leave no window for expansion by the ATF.

By intentionally applying the rules to all bullets, not just some arbitrarily defined 'class' subject to bureaucratic whim, two good things occur for us, and one for those who oppose us. This is the core of why I think this type of proposal might actually find enough support to pass (perhaps not support of outright anti's, but that of squishy fence-marchers like Manchin)

1) The rule/ban becomes so broad that stupid rules about actual armor penetration capacity will never be incorporated. Yes, I am saying definitively that a majority Republican house and senate will not allow a bill outlawing all rounds capable of punching a IIIA vest. By putting 30-06's skin in the game, none of our Fudds will go Benedict Arnold on us. This gives us a marked advantage with regards to the ultimate severity of whatever restrictions are decided upon (none will be so onerous as to ban FMJ 7.62x39 mild steel core). The only trick will be to be diligent about keeping the law simple, so exemptions and pet "cop-killer" rounds don't ruin our gains.
2) The rule/ban becomes far, far more simple to understand, follow, and argue against. If only a handful of exotic rounds that are actually armor-piercing are restricted by the measure, debate on the law thereafter becomes focused solely on the question of whether it is a good idea to withhold AP ammo from civilians. No confusion about "the law doesn't actually do this but the concept is still wrong," and no secret plans to dry up the ammo supply through unilateral administrative interpretation.
3) Broader effect. This one's the win for the anti's. Sort of. You see, I think there is already a very faintly drawn line between "pistols" and "rifles," especially with regards to ammo, so I don't think officially applying the rules we decide on to all bullets, regardless of chambering, platform, power, or velocity, is all that huge of a loss. There would be practically no loss in reality, if we amend the law to only forbid commercial manufacture or import of the effected projectiles (gives handloaders and hoarders a break to shoot what they have), and a provision prohibiting use on living creatures would also have no practical effect. You'd actually still be able to import AP ammo, so long as it is pulled down and the bullets destroyed at the Port Authority.

But, and it's an important "but"; the anti's and fence-squatters would be able to tell their constituencies they we able to broaden the effect of gun control laws --something they haven't been able to claim any sort of victory on at the federal level for over two decades. Of course they're hungry after all that time, so they'd would surely be willing to make a deal that allows them to save some face, even if it expands our options in practice. After all, it's not like they even have the slightest appreciation for whether they are affecting us or not (case in point: '94 AWB and Brady Bill), they just know whether there is one more or one less bill they signed with "gun control" in the title.

The only reason gunnies are so stubborn and steadfast about compromise right now, is because we have the upper hand. We really, and truly do. We can resist anything they are capable of throwing at us, so we don't need to come to the table and stake a claim. However, that's not a strategy for ever gaining territory, and odds dictate that we will lose the occasional battle, so over the long haul it's a losing strategy.

There aren't many compromises I'm comfortable with making on hardly any issue these days; they are more often than not a vehicle for pitting two groups' dear and diametrically opposed interests against each other for the purposes of illustrating how differentiated they are. They are not good faith compromises. This one, I hope, is something close to a real compromise at the middle, in which we give up a very little, and they give up a very little, and the rule of law is ultimately better for it.

It's no better for us to exploit bad law to illogical ends than for the Anti's to do it. Now, I'd appreciate at least some measure of feedback for what I've painstakingly proposed here, since I'm really not interested in arguing the wisdom of trying to further our position via congress. Since I do not advocate the violent overthrow of our nation (that's the way to get what you want by standing on principle, guys --just be damned careful what you wish for) I am resigned --no, hopeful-- to the idea of getting more well-reasoned ("reasonable" is a code-word now ) legislation passed to replace the ill-conceived garbage we suffer under now.

TCB

*see sig line

 

[barnbwt]

"TCB- You're the last person I expected this to come from you feelin' alright?
Feelin' fine; a little irked that the ATF can even entertain the notion of having sole dominion over all small-bore FMJ, though. I'd love to do something about that, and not just talk about how wrong it is and how we'll fix it "someday."

"I kinda like the ability tol roll my own 7.62x25 tungsten sabots. Makes good for quick anti-materiel usage."
I hope you're joking, since you are already breaking the law by doing so. Manufacture of 'armor piercing' 'pistol ammunition' most certainly covers 7.62 Tokarev, composed of solid tungsten.

Happily enough, by limiting the rules to rifling stabilized projectiles, so as to safe-guard shotgun pellets and flechette, the possibility of small-bore smooth-bore Fin-Stabilized-Discarding-Sabot super-high velocity solids can potentially be realized. The "armor piercing" bit associated with these rounds sort of goes without saying so far as whatever the police use, at the +4000ft/s velocities that can be reached, regardless the material they are made from. Then again, since smooth-bores can't be 'pistols,' the current law technically allows their development in long arms (and short arms with tax stamp)

TCB

 

[tyeo098]

"I kinda like the ability tol roll my own 7.62x25 tungsten sabots. Makes good for quick anti-materiel usage."
I hope you're joking, since you are already breaking the law by doing so. Manufacture of 'armor piercing' 'pistol ammunition' most certainly covers 7.62 Tokarev, composed of solid tungsten.

Not currently, but that raises an interesting question.

USC 922a(7) defines that its 'unlawful':

for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition,

But USC 921a(10) says 'as used in this chapter':

(10) The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

Do reloaders count as manufactures of ammunition? No, because the intent is for personal use, and not "manufacturing [...] ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution"