Friday, March 13, 2015

Dems Push ATF To Revive M855 Bullet Ban and More

Domestic enemies. It's always the Democrats.
Congressional Democrats are pressuring the Obama administration to move ahead  “swiftly” with a proposal that would ban a form of armor-piercing ammunition.

In a draft letter first obtained by The Hill, Democrats are urging the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to use his “existing authority” to keep “dangerous ammunition out of our communities.”

“We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition,” Democrats write in the letter.

The ATF had sought to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing or selling 5.56 mm projectiles for M855 cartridges, arguing they are a threat to law enforcement officers because they can be used in handguns.

But the proposal generated a firestorm of opposition from Republicans and gun groups, who denounced it as an attack on the Second Amendment that could open the door to sweeping restrictions on ammunition.

With the backlash growing, the ATF backed down earlier this week, shelving the proposal indefinitely to allow time for “further study.”

House Democrats in their letter say they are “very disappointed” that the ATF delayed the rule. The proposal, they say, is true to the spirit of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which Congress passed in 1986 to ensure that officers do “not face extreme safety risk from firearm technology.”

(read the rest here)
Is this the 'line' in the sand?

How many would do nothing if they really did effectively ban M855?

How many would do nothing if they banned ALL 5.56 ammo like ATF Director B. Todd Jones suggested in a in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing...for officer safetyness. The fact that zero, none, zilch, nada, zip, nary a one, officer has been killed with this round doesn't matter to him and his cronies. They have an agenda and they are going to see it through one way or another. 

It's interesting that they didn't go after 7.62x51 ammo or similar, which is far more effective at penetrating armor than the 5.56x45 round.


Saturday, March 7, 2015

M855 Already Banned in New ATF Regulation Guide - ATF Back-pedals

Forgive me for being a bit behind in my postings. Lots going on.

So I'm sure you've already heard that the ATF already published their online 2014 Regulation Guide and that the M855 round no longer has the exemption from being considered 'armor piercing' included.

When called out on this discovery, the ATF published a response to clarify (back-pedal?) the issue as a 'publishing error' on their part:
Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 20 14 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.

The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here. The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.
There are only 2 possible causes of this:

1) It was an actual error
2) It was intentional because they already planned on outlawing the M855.

You can send your thoughts to ATF about the proposal until March 16, 2015 using the channels below:
  • Fax: (202) 648-9741
  • Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments
What's next? A ban on 7.62x51?

Resist anyway you can.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

ATF Proposes Ban on M855 Green Tip Penetrator Ammo

Looks like the ATF is at it again.

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
(read the rest here)

When they can't ban our guns, they try to ban our ammo. The EPA tried it with the lead ban on bullets and failed. Now the ATF is determined to change the classification of the M855 cartridge as 'armor piercing' despite it not being a true AP round.

The M855 bullet consists of a hard steel cone which sits behind the copper jacketed tip and in front of the lead core base. Originally developed as the SS109 by the Belgians to penetrate one side of an enemies steel helmet, it was adopted by the US and redesignated as the M855.

This round is pretty popular with the AR-15 crowd as it can be found fairly easily as surplus ammo and is plentiful. Apparently this round is now deemed to be a potential threat to the government when used by its own citizens for all purposes legal and lawful.

Seems like a whole new avenue in the black market is about to open up. Price gouging and panic buying coming soon to a gun store near you.

Got M855?

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Holster Review: Alien Gear Holster

The good people at Alien Gear Holsters asked if I would review their new Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 2.0 IWB Holster. Truth be told, I was just looking at them the week before and was considering trying one out. Now I had no excuse not to, since they were kind enough to send me one for this review. I told them I would wear it for 2 weeks before I gave my review. So here we are.

I have been using a CrossBreed SuperTuck Deluxe daily for 6 years now. I carry in the 1 o'clock position, not quite appendix carry but close enough. I'm a big fan of my CrossBreed so I was wondering how the Alien Gear would compare to it. Both have a lifetime warranty (CrossBreed's lifetime warranty does not apply to all items). Both are IWB holsters. Both have similar construction styles. But that's where the similarities end. I'll get to the differences in my review below as they come up.

So when the Alien Gear holster arrived, it came in an black ziplock type plastic bag with their logo on it. Inside was the holster, instructions, and a set of spare parts nicely packaged on a neon green (keeping with the alien theme) plastic backing card, not a bunch of loose parts in a plastic bag. I appreciated the extra thought that went into this. It keeps everything nice and organized. No extra parts are included with the CrossBreed.

I took out the holster to exam it. The first thing I noticed was that the backside portion which goes directly against your body was lined with a thin piece of neoprene. It was soft and slightly spongy and actually felt pretty nice. I can see the benefit of having this against your skin versus leather when it's hot out. The back side also had the T-Nuts already in place for adjustment of the clips if you wanted to adjust the ride height. With the CrossBreed, you have to move the T-nuts to where you want if you want to adjust the clips. On the Alien Gear, the T-Nuts were used to attach the plastic shell with unlike the rivets used on the CrossBreed. I'll explain why this is important further down. 
Against the body Neoprene side of the holster
The other thing I noticed was that the hard plastic shell on the Alien Gear holster covered the entire length of the gun slide unlike the CrossBreed. In addition to that, the 20° cant angle on the Alien Gear was more aggressive than the CrossBreed 10° cant angle. Both holsters can adjust the cant angle by raising one clip and lowering  the other as I have done on my CrossBreed below. The one advantage the CrossBreed has over the Alien Gear in adjustment options is that it has 4 adjustment location holes versus the 3 that the Alien Gear has. However, I did not find it to be much of an advantage. Also, the way the leather is cut on the Alien Gear allows for a firm, full grip on the pistol versus the CrossBreed as seen below. I found this to be very advantageous and practical.

Going back to how the shells are attached, I really like how the Alien Gear is attached versus how CrossBreed attaches theirs. Why? CrossBreed rivets their shell in place, whereas the Alien Gear screws theirs in place. The spacers that are included in the extra parts pack allow for the shell to be raised or lowered to increase or decrease the retention on the pistol. With the CrossBreed, you have to carefully heat up the Kydex and manipulate the trigger guard to give it a more aggressive hold. In this area, the Alien Gear holster wins for convenience and ease.
In addition to being able to adjust the retention much easier, replacing the shell, if needed, is much simpler as well. As much as I love my CrossBreed, I've had to send it back twice to replace the Kydex when it started cracking at the top edge of the trigger guard. Replacement was free per their Lifetime Warranty, but it was a bit of a hassle to have to send in my holster and wait for it to return. There was no way I could replace the Kydex myself as it was attached with rivets. With the Alien Gear, they'll send a new shell and I can replace it right away. Free. Also the shell is thicker than Kydex so it's less likely to crack.

So, that's all well and good, but how does the Alien Gear holster feel while wearing it? Honestly? Pretty darn good. The neoprene side is a little thicker than the leather of the CrossBreed, but not by much and it's very soft and pliable. The one thing I immediately noticed was that it didn't squeak when I moved or bent like leather did. It stayed firmly in place due to the better gripping plastic clips which wrapped around and under the belt. I was always having to adjust the metal clips on my CrossBreed to get them to stay on the belt, especially when I squatted down. Yes, CrossBreed does offer different clips for a more secure hold, but this is what I have. For me, sitting down was always less comfortable with the CrossBreed, as the leather would dig into my upper thigh (1 o'clock carry position, remember?).
I really like my CrossBreed. Having said that, I think Alien Gear took that great hybrid leather/kydex holster idea and improved upon it. A lot. And in doing so, they still managed to produce a holster that is almost half the cost as the CrossBreed They're very much worth checking out. They'll give you 30 days to try it unlike CrossBreeds 2 weeks. And if you don't like it, send it back. They make it almost impossible not to try it. If you do, tell them Resister in the Rockies sent you.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Kalashnikov USA to Open American Factory in 2015

If you remember back to March 2014, Øbama signed Executive Order 13661 which banned Russian gun maker Kalashnikov from being able to import AK-47's and other Kalashnikov weapons such as the Saiga shotguns into the USA as a sanction against Russia's involvement in the Ukraine.'s some good news for you AK fans:
Kalashnikov enthusiasts, rejoice. The official importer of Russian-made AKs, RWC Group, announced at SHOT Show today that they would be opening an AK factory in the United States later this year.

The new US manufacturer is called Kalashnikov USA. Jim Kelly, production manager with Kalashnikov USA, said that at least three states are currently in the running for hosting the company’s production facilities.

Kelly said that after choosing a host state they hope to have production lines up and running shortly, and ideally the first Kalashnikov USA guns will be available in the second quarter of 2015.

According to Kelly, Kalashnikov USA plans to manufacture roughly “80 percent” of the firearms currently produced by the factory in Russia. That could include shotguns, conventional rifles, and even, according to AK Operators Union, a 9x19mm carbine.

(read more here from the Outdoor Hub)
Take that Øbama!


Mosby: The Reluctant Partisan - Volume Two: The Underground

Ships out at the end of the month.

Order yours over at Forward Observer.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Next Step in ATF Pistol Arm Brace Decision: Declaratory Relief

The other day, the Sig Brace was deemed to be illegal by the ATF if used in a manner that it was not designed for...shouldering the AR pistol.
On Friday, just before the end of the work day, the ATF released a bombshell of a declaration. In their opinion the previous letters claiming SB Tactical’s stabilizing arm brace is perfectly legal were actually completely wrong, and they decided to completely reverse their decision and make the misuse of the item illegal. It’s a landmark change, since this concept (that the use of an object determines what it is rather than its intrinsic qualities) has never been applied to firearms ever in the history of the world. It would seem to some like this is the end of the line barring some legal challenge after an arrest, but there is one last card up SB Tactical’s sleeve: Declaratory Relief.
(read it all here)
Basically, if I understand correctly, the ATF's wording makes a pistol a SBR if shouldered to fire because the pistol was not designed to be fired from the shoulder. Using their logic, firing a rifle one handed would make it a pistol.

And by the same ATF logic, firing a pistol with 2 hands would make that pistol, well, I don't a pistol is meant (by ATF logic) to be fired with one hand.

Let's hope a judge can see through this malarkey and make the proper decision.

The fight isn't over yet.

Friday, January 16, 2015

ATF Ruling on Sig Braces Makes Them Illegal to Shoulder Fire

 Well, people couldn't leave well enough alone and kept sending letters to the BATF to confirm whether or not it was legal to shoulder the Sig Brace. Now they got their answer.

Below is the letter ruling on the matter from F-Troop.

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.
These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.
The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”
In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

In my opinion, this is unenforceable, unless there are ATF agents hiding in the bushes waiting to pounce on unsuspecting shooters using the Sig Brace as a substitute shoulder stock.

I need to get one now.


Monday, January 12, 2015

NYPD Tells Cops To Generate More Revenue Or No Vacations

Road pirates and revenue generators for the city. That's what the main duty of the police has been for quite some time now. For proof of this, let's see what the NYPD is forcing it's officers to do according to the NY Post:
Throughout the city, precincts are being ordered to hand up to borough commanders “activity sheets” indicating the number of arrests and summonses per shift, sources told The Post.

“Police officers around the city are now threatened with transfers, no vacation time and sick time unless they write summonses,” one union source said.

“This is the same practice that caused officers to be labeled racist and abusers of power.”

In at least one precinct, the brass backlash — which comes in the wake of Police Commissioner Bill Bratton ordering cops back on the job after The Post reported a 90 percent drop in ticket writing — is downright ­draconian.

“Everyone here is under orders — no time off” during the summons catch-up blitz, said one cop at the 105th Precinct in Queens.

“And the majority of [new] summonses written aren’t protecting the public in any way.

“But now they’re realizing how much revenue the city is losing and they’re enforcing their will upon us,” he said.
 To Serve (the city coffers) and Protect (income revenue stream).