"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