The Weapon Blog

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Thursday raised new concerns about surplus military ammo used in popular AR-15 rifles and pistols just days after pulling back on a proposal to ban the ammo because it could threaten police safety.

“Any 5.56 round” is “a challenge for officer safety,” he said. Jones asked lawmakers to help in a review of a 1986 bill written to protect police from so-called “cop killer” rounds that largely exempted rifle ammo like the 5.56 because it has been used by target shooters, not criminals.

Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/atf-raises-new-worries-about-ar-15-ammo/article/2561422

AMMO BAN – Its not over . . . Or . . .Did the BATFE just pull a fast one on us? YES THEY DID!

Sure . . they backed down on the ammo ban.

But what they didn’t tell us is that the United States Supreme court just ruled that agencies such as the BATFE do not have to submit rule changes to public comment. They can just change the rules when and where they want to!

So yes, BATFE has “shelved” the ammo ban for now.

But they have merely set it back to wait for the public furor to die down and for the attention of Congress to wander elsewhere!

Then, they will make the rule changes without notice.

This includes the reclassification and ban of ammo and even ATF-41P.

Please continue to submit your comments on the ammo ban for the next 4 days.

Please write your Congress Critters and ask them to change the law and require rule making agencies to submit rule changes to public comment.

This is the only way to fix the supreme court’s decision.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/TexasGunTrust/posts/855939001114934

Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.”