The M855 issue is still up in the air. ATF Chief calls all 5.56 ammo a threat.

[LemmyCaution]

I think the better approach is to draft legislation that removes discretion from the AG's office regarding definitions and terms of regulation. Congress should spell out exactly what their regulations apply to and how. When facts on the ground change, they can amend legislation as needed. But Congress has for too long abdicated their responsibility and ceded power to the Executive. It worked out poorly under Bush II, and it's worked out poorly under Obama.

 

[hso]

Another good approach.

 

[justin22885]

rifle vs pistol round can easily be determined by a case overall length rule.. say anything 45mm and below is pistol, as COAL tends to be the determining factor of whats typically too big for a realistic handgun.. as it stands i could hack the buttstock off my mosin and call it a 20" barreled pistol and theyd have grounds to ban steel core 7.62x54R as well which is ridiculous.. or a better idea, take out all restrictions based on armor piercing, its entirely stupid, unconstitutional, and inhibits our ability to carry out the true intent of the second amendment and that is to be equally equipped as any military

we should have the entire piece of legislation dealing with it completely revoked, any push for anything less at this point is complacency and our permission to keep restrictions they already have based on arbitrary and idiotic beliefs that criminals are using armor piercing ammo to kill police

 

[barnbwt]

"rifle vs pistol round can easily be determined by a case overall length rule.. say anything 45mm and below is pistol"

You almost immediately admit it would be a completely arbitrary threshold. I say that 1) the distinction twixt rifle cannot be made as clearly as a law requires and we should therefore avoid reinforcing the idea on the books if at all possible, and 2) the length threshold being totally arbitrary (and poorly understood by clueless lawmakers), it will be far too easy for negotiators to "give a little" to gain supporters, and end up with anything longer than 45ACP as a rifle round. I think by requiring any new rules here to apply to all bullets, regardless the chambering, we'd both clarify things for everyone immensely and end up with looser rules than we have now (because all gunowners, Fudd, mall-ninja, or self-defense-ninja, would have skin in the game and an interest in cheap soft-steel-core ammo). No pistol/rifle confusion or ATF discretion, and probably no "sporting use" confusion or ATF discretion, since I doubt that kind of mealy-mouthed language will fly in this day and age (Fudds no longer rule)

"as it stands i could hack the buttstock off my mosin and call it a 20" barreled pistol and theyd have grounds to ban steel core 7.62x54R as well which is ridiculous"
First, they'd call it a Short Barreled Rifle, second that's called an Obrez, and third, the ATF has thus far chosen to say clearly that single/double shot (and in all honesty, probably all manual-operated non-AR15) pistols will not by themselves trigger re-evaluations of "pistol availability" status. The rationale being that manually-operated low capacity guns have intrinsic sporting uses (implying strongly that all other manner of guns do not, and that the gun itself somehow determines the sporting suitability of the ammo rather than the ammo itself, which is how the law actually reads --pistol 'type' is not supposed to enter into it). Fourth, a 7.62x54R pistol-sized rifle would, in fact, be ridiculous

"we should have the entire piece of legislation dealing with it completely revoked, any push for anything less at this point is complacency and our permission to keep restrictions they already have based on arbitrary and idiotic beliefs that criminals are using armor piercing ammo to kill police"
You are right, but I don't think this is practical (practicable?). There's simply too many gun owners who just slapped the ATF across the face who otherwise support what the law does. An awful lot of gun owners really don't think tungsten-core and hard steel-core ammo should be "allowed" us, even though the reality of enforcing these desires is shear bananas.

"I think the better approach is to draft legislation that removes discretion from the AG's office regarding definitions and terms of regulation. Congress should spell out exactly what their regulations apply to and how."
I'm sure that would be some combination of impossibles, stemming from congressional ignorance about technical firearms issues, boredom in dealing with minutia, and laziness with regards to their proper function as pruners of the legal bonsai tree (as opposed to dumpers of Miracle Grow onto kudzu vines)

"When facts on the ground change, they can amend legislation as needed."
<Dana Carvey as George HW Bush> "Wouldn't be prudent."

I think it was Milton Friedman who said something to the effect that good governance is achieved when we (us) make it politically profitable for our pols to do the right thing. As wrong as LEOPA is philosophically and in practice, it remains a politically profitable move to ostensibly support laws that make our police less vulnerable --as evidenced by every mayor/sheriff and Armed Forces Committee member campaigning on supplying LEOs/troops with "better body armor." I think we have to give them something that at least has the visual effect of doing that, in order to get any improvements (unrelated to officer safety) on our end.

TCB

 

[justin22885]

so if theyre sticking to semis i guess i can just buy a PSL parts kit and build it with a pistol trunnion, sure itll still be 3 feet long and weigh 8 pounds, but according to them its a pistol, and despite 7.62x54R being 3 inches long, firing a 150 grain projectile at 2800fps, it'll suddenly be a pistol caliber... this is how absolutely ridiculous the powers they have now are, thats why we need to just do away with the armor piercing bullcrap entirely for any cartridge of any firearm, its a restriction that really has to leg to stand on or valid reason to exist in the first place, so forget trying to dictate how to classify any of it, we should be attacking the legislation that bans armor piercing in the first place

 

[barnbwt]

Only if you keep the overall length below 26" (I think that's the right one) in the process. Otherwise you'd have a "firearm" that is neither smoothbore nor intended to be fired from the shoulder, nor considered "concealable" by the ATF's arbirtrary standard (so that number might actually be something different --I forget). That's how large tripod mounted belt fed semi's with spade grips are classified.

Fun fact; being classified as a "firearm" rather than some sort of "rifle," 922r no longer applies for spade-gripped guns. However, whenever I get around to obtaining the DD tax stamp and starting construction on my KPV kit, it will be considered a "rifle" due to the stock and therefore subject to 922r even though at ~120lbs, it would be far less mobile than a Goryunov on its wheeled cart. Luckily recoil-operated actions don't contain many 922r parts (it was written with H&K G3's in mind)

I am not trying to correct you to prove a point or whatever; this stuff really is confusing, and is the subject of many discussions by home builders (the only people experiencing the bleeding edge of non-settled gun legality questions). To make matters worse, it's pretty much constantly changing as well (more for the better as of late, at least where AR15's aren't concerned)

To all the fools who bicker about "those idiots who keep asking the ATF questions" this is why they have to do so. Unless you are straight up copying one of the more common builds out there, you actually have to do a bit of homework to make you don't accidentally become a felon by stepping on an invisible landmine. Heck, converting a G3 parts kit to legal semi-auto operation is more legally dangerous than itemizing your tax return (there's about half a dozen ways having nothing to do with the trigger functionality that will instantly make your build an illegal machinegun, and none of them are intuitively avoided)

TCB

 

[LemmyCaution]

"I think the better approach is to draft legislation that removes discretion from the AG's office regarding definitions and terms of regulation. Congress should spell out exactly what their regulations apply to and how."
I'm sure that would be some combination of impossibles, stemming from congressional ignorance about technical firearms issues, boredom in dealing with minutia, and laziness with regards to their proper function as pruners of the legal bonsai tree (as opposed to dumpers of Miracle Grow onto kudzu vines)

There's very little congress has expertise in. They legislate on those subjects regardless. And they don't do it in a vacuum. Probably a bad example, but the ACA was not written by congress. It was written by the health insurance and health care industries and their lobbyists. This is how all major legislation is written- in consultation with the stake holders. We just need to make sure that our people have a real place at the table and have our list of demands cogently articulated. This is what NRA-ILA is for, and it's working.

"When facts on the ground change, they can amend legislation as needed."
<Dana Carvey as George HW Bush> "Wouldn't be prudent."

Wouldn't be convenient. That's why we like this approach- it makes sure that regulating the 2A is a pain in the butt for congress and costs them political capital, so they'll be less inclined to do it.

 

[barnbwt]

"we should be attacking the legislation that bans armor piercing in the first place"
I really do think that if we keep pecking at the NFA rifle/pistol Maginot Line that the great majority of these little niggling details will resolve themselves. Think about it; if the distinction disappears, all firearms will likely be re-classified as "firearms" at the federal level (since that's what all the various other statutes refer to when guns are involved). LEOPA only refers to pistols, not 'firearms of sufficient concealability" or whatever, so its whole mission of classifying pistol ammunition would be mooted.

922r only refers to rifles assembled from imported parts; it's entire mission of arbitrary protectionist baloney (two identical unmarked AK hammers, one made in the US; play three card monte to guess which one makes you a felon in the wrong gun --also identical to a foreign made semi)

Couple that with the obvious rapid decline in the ATF's defensibility of this distinction without a difference (the SIG brace lawsuits inevitably bubbling up will put this in plain view when it comes to the order of operations needed to convert pistol to rifle and back again, and how it is highly illegal to convert a rifle to pistol ever). Almost universal use of SBRs by the military and police further undermines the idea they should hold special legal status (seeing as the entire NFA is based on the idea such guns are 'unusual' and concealable, and therefore not suited for general issue in a military/militia)

TCB