vBCms Comments

Welcome To Hunting Country

    Site News & Announcements (34)
    New Member Introductions (142)

General Hunting Forums

    After the Hunt - Recipes / Cooking (59)
    Waterfowl, and Small Birds (15)
    Big Game General (47)
    Turkey Hunting (60)
    Small Game (11)
    Whitetail / Mule Deer Forum (149)
    Pigs & Exotics (11)
    General Gear and Hunting Accessories (59)

Archery & Bowhunting

    Archery Gear Talk - Compounds (80)
    Archery Gear Talk - Accessories (28)
    Bowhunting (153)
    Archery Gear Talk - Crossbows (7)

Shooting Sports

    Gun / Rifle Target Shooting (17)
    Archery Target/Tournament Shooting (5)

Manufacturers' Corner

    Product Announcements (2)
    Promotions and News (6)


    Black Powder (1)
    AR Talk (15)
    Guns & Rifles (88)
    Reloading (12)


    Fishing Gear (1)
    General & Misc (3)
    Archery Equipment (17)
    Guns & Firearms (11)
    Camping & Hiking (0)

Not Hunting / General Chit Chat

    Podunk Corner (1588)
    Photography (118)
    Fishing Chat (46)
1.) Swamp Fox - 03/03/2015
I'm hoping that over the last few weeks most interested people have heard of this, but I'm not confident. Please forward info to your friends and frenemies, as the deadline for public comments is approaching (March 16). The two links below will provide good clear info even to folks who are not gun people, but who know a dangerous and unjustified powergrab by the regulatory state when they see one.

Video discussion discussing the background, origin and fix to the regulation, along with other interesting tidbits:


One of the best articles I've seen regarding the whys and wherefores, plus the therefores:


[I]Given that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem, it doesn’t seem conspiratorial to wonder if this is a political move orchestrated to make it more expensive to shoot AR-15s, which are traditionally chambered in .223. In its argument for this rule change, the ATF is clearly justifying expanding the ammo ban to traditional rifle calibers.


In fact, while arguing that definitions of what bullets are banned shouldn’t be decided by the ammunition’s intended use, but instead should be solely determined at ATF’s discretion, the ATF says, “the intent of one group of potential consumers (criminals) is no more determinative than the intent of manufacturers.” The ATF’s lumping of law-abiding gun owners as a group of “potential consumers” with “criminals” rankled many in the gun-rights community. This and other language in the proposal is leading many to argue this is all about an end-run around Congress to implement gun control.

Whatever the motivation for this change might be, as the ATF attempts to define its way to a larger regulatory role over a constitutional right, it’s clearly time for Congress to clarify its legislation or risk being left meaningless. (The ATF has opened a public-comment period until March 16. Email [email]APAComments@atf.gov[/email] to give your opinion.)


[B]Email your comments to ATF by March 16 [email]--------APAComments@atf.gov[/email] [/B]