|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Republican Introduces Bill Revoking ATF’s Power To Regulate Ammo
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"On Friday, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) introduced legislation revoking the ATF’s claim of power to regulate ammunition via 'armor piecing' language in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)."
"The ATF is specifically claiming the ability to regulate ammunition via the 'armor piercing' language contained in the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, an amendment added to the GCA in 1986. Their current focus is on banning the wildly popular M855 round for AR-15 rifles."
"Rooney’s bill would roll back the ATF’s powers to pre-1986 levels." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/3/2015)
|
The American public might be far better served to severely curtail the scope, staff and budget of BATF. Many of its "responsibilities" are already being performed by the FBI - not that I like the FBI - but better one snake den than two.
The american public has been increasingly burdened by an overweening bureaucracy proliferating at exponential rates. The net result has been a negative impact on our nation's economy, our lifestyles and, most importantly, on our freedoms. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
