The most difficult thing to combat is incremental change. It is hard to recognize the change that is occurring as it happens over a long period of time. This kind of change has been coming in the area of gun rights. They have changed the argument. The 2nd amendment has gone from the right to defend oneself from a tyrannical government to a right to hunt on the weekend. This is now continuing with the ATF seeking to ban 5.56 rounds.
The Washington Examiner
The ATF has proposed banning the ammo because it has concerns that the popularity of AR-15 pistols might mean a greater threat to police. Foes of the move, including a top police group, however, say there is no evidence the $1,000 pistols have been used against police. Others note that the metals used in the ammo are not included in the old law’s description of armor-piercing bullets.
This would mean that it would be perfectly legal for one a citizen to own a rifle that fires this ammo, but not the ammo itself. This is kind of like giving us the right to drive a Stock Car on the street yet deprive us of the fuel it would take to drive. This is a means of banning the weapon. This ban is not without opposition.
The Examiner reports
A majority in both the Senate and House — 52 senators, 238 House members — have joined to oppose the Obama administration’s move to ban a popular type of ammo used in the top-selling AR-15 rifle and pistol because it pierces police body armor.
A week after the House members, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, sent a letter of opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed that in his own letter signed by 51 others.
There is hope that these people will stand on this issue. If not, there is a great chance that Obama will by fiat ban this ammo. This should share the law abiding citizen. It should be seen as akin to a man telling you that there was no need for a burglar alarm. He might want to rob you. Why does a government fear an armed populous if not that they want to enslave them?
Grassy writes in part
ATF would determine what amounts to “substantial evidence” and whether the “ammunition is not primarily intended for [sporting] purposes.” The statute was not enacted to give authority to ATF to do either. In 1986, the sponsors of the legislation were emphatic in stating that ammunition commonly used in rifles for TARGET practice or hunting was not of the type of ammunition that the bill would ban. ATF seems to have decided to ban ammunition types that the law did not ban, then developed from whole cloth an “objective” test to supposedly provide it with the ability to ban the ammunition types it already had selected for prohibition.
It seems that the Senator misses the purpose. The purpose of this ban is to make these targeted weapons useless. If this ban becomes law, then the 2nd amendment will be struck down. I guess what they say is true. There is more than one way to skin a cat.