Police say Obama bullet ban isn't needed

[bfreeman]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/police-say-ar-15-bullet-up-for-ban-is-not-a-threat-countering-atf-white-house/article/2560964#.

 

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police says "Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands but this specific round has historically not posted a law enforcement problem". It can only be a plus having the Fraternal Order of Police with 325, 000 members saying this.

[Draal]

The more people speaking out against this ban, the better.

[McCroskey]

It's Obama's way of setting a precedent. If they can get hat one banned a lot of others will be much easier.

[SFC Stu]

Obama has no scruples.

[lockman]

Any ban on ammunition solely because it defeats body armor is contrary to right of bearing arms. Basically, this equated to you can only bear arms against those NOT bearing body armor. So called AP ammunition has been determined by ATF to have no sporting purpose. But Heller & McDonald have basically gutted the sporting purpose definitions the entire GCA of 68 is based upon. Now they are banning ammunition also used in defense and defense being a fundamental right.

[mauserme]

Any ban on ammunition solely because it defeats body armor is contrary to right of bearing arms. Basically, this equated to you can only bear arms against those NOT bearing body armor. So called AP ammunition has been determined by ATF to have no sporting purpose. But Heller & McDonald have basically gutted the sporting purpose definitions the entire GCA of 68 is based upon. Now they are banning ammunition also used in defense and defense being a fundamental right.

That could also implicate the ban on importation of firearms without a sporting purpose.

 

The SAF is already involved, by the way.

[marathonrunner]

it is a shame all I can say. hopefully the american people will not vote for _______ in 2016 because it will be 8 more years of ugggg

[TRJ]

$ James Pasco, executive director of FOP? Hi, I'm from the IRS. Mein furher ...I mean my boss sent me to discuss your recent tax filing. $

[mauserme]

$ James Pasco, executive director of FOP? Hi, I'm from the IRS. Mein furher ...I mean my boss sent me to discuss your recent tax filing. $

 

What does that mean, TRJ?

[tkroenlein]

 

$ James Pasco, executive director of FOP? Hi, I'm from the IRS. Mein furher ...I mean my boss sent me to discuss your recent tax filing. $

What does that mean, TRJ?

I think TRJ is alluding to IRS targeting by those who may disagree with the politics of the Administration.

[lockman]

it is a shame all I can say. hopefully the american people will not vote for _______ in 2016 because it will be 8 more years of ugggg

It's also a sham!

[Elmer Fudd]

If we are heading down that path, its probably useful to add some historical perspective.....some of the most outrageous abuses that the IRS undertook was against the "left" at the behest of J Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Richard Nixon......form a favorite article....

 

President Obama expressed anger Monday at recent revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative non-profit groups for increased scrutiny during his first term. “If you have the IRSoperating in anything less than a neutral and nonpartisan way, then that is outrageous,” Obama said. “It is contrary to our traditions.”

By traditions, he presumably meant the nation’s laws, which for decades have held that the federal government cannot target specific groups or individuals for tax enforcement without cause. But the IRS has a long history of disregarding this tradition.

For much of the post-war period, the agency has failed to meet its mission of neutrality, bowing to political pressure and resisting repeated attempts at internal reforms. On multiple occasions, it has become embroiled in scandal due to exactly the sort of behavior that senior IRS officials now admit occurred between 2010 and 2012.

(MORE: The Real IRS Scandal)

John F. Kennedy sanctioned an “Ideological Organizations Project” at the IRS that investigated right-wing groups. President Richard Nixon encouraged a secret IRS program called the “Special Services Staff” to investigate his political opponents and harass them with audits. And presidents weren’t the only offenders; the FBI has long used the IRS to harass political opponents. A 1964 FBI plan to “discredit” the United Klans of America called for illegally disclosing tax information about key members. Around the same time, the FBI initiated an IRS audit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his non-profit organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. One memo even suggested the bureau forge letters from King to donors of the group that warned of the ongoing IRS investigations, in the hopes of cutting off the group’s cash flow.

Some of the most egregious abuses of the last 50 years were undertaken at the behest of the FBI, sometimes under the cover of a secret domestic counterintelligence program called COINTELPRO. In May 1968, a memo was sent to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. “The New Left on many occasions viciously and scurrilously attacked the Director and the Bureau,” the FBI memo read, according to the Church Committee report, a 1976 Senate investigation on U.S. intelligence abuses. The next day, Hoover authorized a new program to “expose, disrupt and otherwise neutralize” groups and individuals on the left, in part by employing the IRS as a weapon in the secret federal campaign.

Within a year, the FBI had directed the IRS to open investigations on 35 activists suspected of not filing tax returns. An FBI memo from that August of 1968 called for an IRS audit of a university professor suspected of planning protests to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The FBI hoped that the paperwork demands of an audit “may be a source of distraction during the critical period when he is engaged in meetings and plans for disruption of the Democratic National Convention.”

The Church Committee also found that between 1966 and 1974, the FBI obtained about 200 tax returns from the IRS. Of that group, most were for domestic intelligence investigations, largely of black nationalists and anti-Vietnam War activists. In 1968, the IRS program of cooperating with the FBI without asking questions was deemed “illegal” by a senior IRS official, though abuses continued despite the call for internal reforms.

 

Source: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/14/anger-over-irs-audits-of-conservatives-anchored-in-long-history-of-abuse/

 

Its certainly fair to say that both sides like to use this tool when it suits a need.

[mauserme]

If we are heading down that path ...

 

We're not.

[pomme333]

are they going to ban teflon too? otherwise, bad guys could just buy it and coat any bullet with it.

[TRJ]

 

 

$ James Pasco, executive director of FOP? Hi, I'm from the IRS. Mein furher ...I mean my boss sent me to discuss your recent tax filing. $

What does that mean, TRJ?

I think TRJ is alluding to IRS targeting OF those who may disagree with the politics of the Administration.

Yep, fify a bit though.

[Elmer Fudd]

Any ban on ammunition solely because it defeats body armor is contrary to right of bearing arms. Basically, this equated to you can only bear arms against those NOT bearing body armor. So called AP ammunition has been determined by ATF to have no sporting purpose. But Heller & McDonald have basically gutted the sporting purpose definitions the entire GCA of 68 is based upon. Now they are banning ammunition also used in defense and defense being a fundamental right.

Its rather clear from the opinions that neither Heller or McDonald have done much of anything to reduce the validity of Miller. It doesn't seem that the AP ammo has a clear winning case under the "in common use" argument. There are all kinds of restrictions on Dragon's Breath, Flechette and Bolo rounds, etc. So thinking that they can't regulate so called AP ammo is probably attenuated at best. If the issue were to arise, the modification of the "sporting purpose" test for military surplus rifles, could be modified into a "point test" similar to the one that is applicable to handguns very easily.

 

An idea that would be exciting to see happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

[tkroenlein]

$ James Pasco, executive director of FOP? Hi, I'm from the IRS. Mein furher ...I mean my boss sent me to discuss your recent tax filing. $

What does that mean, TRJ?

 

I think TRJ is alluding to IRS targeting OF those who may disagree with the politics of the Administration.

Yep, fify a bit though.

Pesky prepositions.

[mauserme]

 

Any ban on ammunition solely because it defeats body armor is contrary to right of bearing arms. Basically, this equated to you can only bear arms against those NOT bearing body armor. So called AP ammunition has been determined by ATF to have no sporting purpose. But Heller & McDonald have basically gutted the sporting purpose definitions the entire GCA of 68 is based upon. Now they are banning ammunition also used in defense and defense being a fundamental right.

Its rather clear from the opinions that neither Heller or McDonald have done much of anything to reduce the validity of Miller. It doesn't seem that the AP ammo has a clear winning case under the "in common use" argument. There are all kinds of restrictions on Dragon's Breath, Flechette and Bolo rounds, etc. So thinking that they can't regulate so called AP ammo is probably attenuated at best. If the issue were to arise, the modification of the "sporting purpose" test for military surplus rifles, could be modified into a "point test" similar to the one that is applicable to handguns very easily.

 

An idea that would be exciting to see happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

 

We, not Illinois Carry alone but pro-gun groups in general, are very dedicated to turning bad situations into things more beneficial to our values.

 

That never involves looking for reasons to accept the status quo or concede defeat on any issue. As individuals many of us might find comfort in avoiding the hard work. Thankfully there are enough of us putting our efforts into protecting and promoting the Second Amendment to counter that intertia.

 

I'll ask you to avoid working against our values and goals in the form of counseling defeat in the face of potential success.

[Elmer Fudd]

Ok....there is a huge difference between "counseling defeat" and attempting to have a pragmatic view of a situation and ascertain what may or may not be realistic. I would be willing to bet that a substantial portion of the people in the United States would like to see the 16A repealed and the Federal Income Tax disappear. However, the probability of that occurring is just about the same as repealing the law of gravity.

 

The same would apply to the notion that BATFE or DHS is going to be dissolved. The same can be said for a repeal of the GCA of 1968 or the NFA. There should be incremental modifications and hopefully they will be, but the expectation of outright repeal is an unreasonable expectation. The modification or repeal of a proposed ban on so called AP ammunition based upon the technical arguments would have a reasonable possibility of success. The use of a Constitutional argument on that is a "Hail Mary".

 

There is merit to making an effort to seek change because without the effort nothing changes. There is also a tempering influence in not falling into the "Emperor's New Clothes" paradigm and believing that everything is how one wishes it to be. Further, tactical efforts without an overall strategic vision that addresses the allocation of resources isn't the best approach over a long term. There is a substantial difference between making a realistic assessment of something and "counseling defeat". The latter can easily be construed as an attempt to suppress thoughts and idea that don't track the party line.

[mauserme]

Ok....there is a huge difference between "counseling defeat" and attempting to have a pragmatic view of a situation and ascertain what may or may not be realistic. I would be willing to bet that a substantial portion of the people in the United States would like to see the 16A repealed and the Federal Income Tax disappear. However, the probability of that occurring is just about the same as repealing the law of gravity.

 

The same would apply to the notion that BATFE or DHS is going to be dissolved. The same can be said for a repeal of the GCA of 1968 or the NFA. There should be incremental modifications and hopefully they will be, but the expectation of outright repeal is an unreasonable expectation. The modification or repeal of a proposed ban on so called AP ammunition based upon the technical arguments would have a reasonable possibility of success. The use of a Constitutional argument on that is a "Hail Mary".

 

There is merit to making an effort to seek change because without the effort nothing changes. There is also a tempering influence in not falling into the "Emperor's New Clothes" paradigm and believing that everything is how one wishes it to be. Further, tactical efforts without an overall strategic vision that addresses the allocation of resources isn't the best approach over a long term. There is a substantial difference between making a realistic assessment of something and "counseling defeat". The latter can easily be construed as an attempt to suppress thoughts and idea that don't track the party line.

 

In regard to the ammo ban, I continue to find great value in the perspective offered by Miko Tempski.

[ScopeEye]

We need to ban Obuma

[mauserme]

I think we need recognize that some people admire the President for various reasons, but also remember that we are a gun forum and on the issue of guns the President's own press secretary said this about the ammunition ban:

 

At the briefing, Earnest reiterated President Obamas support for the BATFE proposal. He said that the administration is pursuing common sense gun control measures.

It is specifically because of that attack on our rights that we, as a gun forum, should oppose him without regard to our support or opposition on other issues.

[kk5]

I think we need recognize that some people admire the President for various reasons, but also remember that we are a gun forum and on the issue of guns the President's own press secretary said this about the ammunition ban:

 

At the briefing, Earnest reiterated President Obamas support for the BATFE proposal. He said that the administration is pursuing common sense gun control measures.

It is specifically because of that attack on our rights that we, as a gun forum, should oppose him without regard to our support or opposition on other issues.

 

Can't argue with that, Thanks mauserme