The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]

Now that the BATFE has "folded" (temporarily, anyway) their unlawful attempt to ban M855 ammunition this goes out to the Senator from Iowa:

"I’m pleased to see that the ATF has now decided to abide by congressional intent of the law, and its exemption protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after the ATF announcement. "ATF’s original proposal to short-circuit the exemption and limit access to rifle ammunition was an affront to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it was met with stiff rebuke."

Ignoring the 2nd Amendment, which allows no constraint for "armor-piercing" ammunition (indeed, if the 2nd Amendment's purpose is ever necessary, God forbid, the ability to shoot through armor might well be essential) there is this little matter of black-letter statute.

Specifically, as I noted in my previous article, M855 ammunition meets neither of the criteria in the statute (18 USC Sec 921) to define it as armor-piercing, and thus irrespective of any so-called "sporting exception" there has never been, and cannot be without revision of the statute, any such lawful ban on the manufacture or import of same.

In other words there was never any such "exemption" issued as a matter of law, irrespective of any edict that the BATFE might have published.  The reason is simple -- the ammunition in question is not larger than .22 caliber, it was not intended for use in a handgun and it did not have a jacket that was more than 25% of the total mass of the projectile.  Note that all three criteria must be made (the word "and" is used twice) to meet this criteria.

It also is not constructed entirely of any of the listed substances (or only a combination thereof) that would categorize it as "armor-piercing" irrespective of its other characteristics; M855 ammunition is primarily constructed of lead, as is most other ammunition in common use.

Therefore there was never a lawful listing of M855 under any such "sporting exemption" because the ammunition was never, as a matter of statutory law, "armor-piercing" in the first instance.

The Senator from Iowa is either mistaken or has intentionally and flagrantly violated his oath of office as has everyone involved at the DOJ and BATFE, the latter requiring the faithful execution of the law.

Since the BATFE has documented it intention to violate black-letter statute the only proper remedy is disbandment.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Search For Unicorns

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.