Posts Tagged ‘firearms’

Via USA Today

Colt Defense, the storied firearms maker, announced late Sunday that it has filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization..

Colt said that in making the filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, it hopes the process will allow it to quickly sell its business operations in the U.S and Canada. A firm, Sciens Capital Management, plans to buy virtually all of Colt’s assets.

“The plan we are announcing and have filed today will allow Colt to restructure its balance sheet while meeting all of its obligations to customers, vendors, suppliers and employees and providing for maximum continuity in the Company’s current and future business operations,” said Keith Maib, Chief Restructuring Officer of Colt Defense, in a statement.

Because of the filing, the sale should go through without all the debt that otherwise would have been associated with it.

The plan is to keep Colt healthy and vigorous, continuing to make guns in West Hartford, Conn.

Colt has produced a lot of famous weapons over the years. Pistols such as the Colt .45 became legendary.

WSJ has more info @


A misleading 2014 FBI report that fueled media claims that mass shooting incidents in the U.S. are rising sharply has been thoroughly debunked. In a piece appearing in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ March 2015 ACJS Today newsletter, Economist John R. Lott carefully lays out the flaws in the Bureaus’ “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013” report.

First, Lott takes the media to task for misrepresenting the underlying scope of the report, and for FBI’s failure to adequately explain the content to its readers. Rather than track mass shootings or murders, the report in fact attempts to track “active shooter incidents.” This is significant because it encompasses events where no one was shot or killed.

Despite this, media outlets ran sensational headlines, like the New York Times’, “F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000.” Lott contends that FBI exacerbated this misperception, noting, “The report discusses mass public shootings, but it never makes it clear to the readers that these types of fatalities and attacks are actually not increasing over time.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

Next, Lott criticizes the authors for selecting their data to show a notable increase in “active shooter incidents.” Lott shows that the inclusion of non-mass shooting incidents where zero or one person was killed have the effect of skewing the data to show a surge. Further, Lott explains that the researchers failed to include at least 20 shooting incidents, and that the omitted events were disproportionately from the earlier years of the period studied.

Lott also takes issue with the limited time period studied by the researchers. When data on mass shootings from 1977 through 2014 are used, and the incidents studied are limited to those where at least two or more people were murdered, the supposed annual increase in shootings is “no longer statistically significant.”

A pair of researchers who worked on the FBI report issued a defense of their work in the May edition of ACJS Today. The researchers attempted to shift blame for the misunderstanding to the media, noting, “We wonder if some members of the media intentionally misreported findings in an attempt to generate a bigger headline or advance their own agendas.” As to why their report was missing so many relevant incidents, they admit, “We acknowledge in the FBI report that our data are imperfect.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates are assailing Democrats for a controversial legislative proposal that they say would restrict access to handguns.

People would be required to obtain a license before purchasing some firearms under the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act, which was introduced Thursday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and a trio of Connecticut lawmakers.

The legislation also seeks to expand background checks to all handgun sales and block people under the age of 21 from purchasing those firearms.States could refuse to implement the handgun regulations, but would risk losing federal funding for doing so.

Though the legislation stands virtually no chance of passing the Republican Congress, the NRA expressed outrage at the proposal, calling it an attempt by Democrats to “delay and deny” gun purchases.

“They cannot ban guns because of the Constitution, so they want to make it so difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.

“Someone should send them a copy of the Constitution — specifically, a copy of the Second Amendment,” she added.

The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would zero in on handgun purchases, but exempt rifles and other types of firearms.

It is backed by a study from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research that found handgun licenses dramatically reduce homicide rates.

“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.”

In addition to Van Hollen, who is running for the Senate, three Connecticut Democrats back the handgun bill: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy. Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in 2012.

Their bill would provide states with an incentive to strengthen their guns laws. States that follow through with the handgun regulations would receive federal funding to carry them out, while those that refused would risk losing money.

To qualify, states would have to implement laws that require prospective gun owners to apply for a firearms license from a local police station. They would be required to pass a background check, including submitting fingerprints and photographs.

Those who pass the background check would receive a firearms license that they must provide to purchase a handgun.

The Democrats say the handgun bill would help law enforcement officials weed out criminals and other people who are not allowed to purchase guns.

But Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, called it a “blatant attempt to fingerprint every law-abiding gun owner in the country like a common criminal.”

“Since they support licensing for exercising Second Amendment freedoms, do they also support licensing of newspaper columns, political speeches and sermons?” asked Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.

The lawmakers called it a gun safety solution.

“States require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives,” Van Hollen said.

“Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” Blumenthal said.

But gun rights advocates warned the proposal would effectively create a national gun registry.

“Driving a car and fishing are not constitutionally-protected rights,” Baker responded. “The Second Amendment protects our individual right to own a gun.”

“One does not need the permission of the government in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right,” added Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The bill is just the latest attempt by gun control advocates in Congress to close a background check loophole they say makes it easier for criminals to purchase guns.

Even though most gun owners go through lengthy background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, these same requirements do not always apply when buying guns online or at gun shows.

Gun safety advocates say toughening the rules would reduce gun violence around the country.

“It shows the tremendous opportunity we have to prevent gun deaths and make all of us safer just by keeping guns out of the wrong hands through good policy like expanded background checks,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Firearm retailers estimate women made up 20 percent of their sales in 2013.

The state of Vermont, our neighbor to the left geographically and politically, does not issue or require a permit to carry a weapon openly or concealed. This has been the case for more than 100 years and is known as constitutional carry because the “permit” is said to be the Constitution.

The Legislature in Maine just passed basically the same thing, and it is expected to be signed by the governor. The Maine legislator who sponsored the bill, Sen. Eric Brakey, said, “All it does is say if you are someone who is already legally able to open carry a handgun that you can also put on a jacket without being a criminal.”

Maine will become the eighth state with this gun policy, and experiences in other states indicate that the loosening of gun permit laws has not had a significant negative impact.

Here in New Hampshire, it is a totally different picture.

Senate Bill 116, allowing concealed carry without a permit, passed the Senate along party lines, with a 14-9 vote. The House put its stamp of approval, 212 to 150. In the House, there was party crossover, with 11 Democrats voting for the bill and 14 Republicans voting against it. While slim, it is arguable that this passed with bipartisan support.

Why is it different here? Gov. Hassan has threatened a veto, and it now sits on her desk. At a time that more women are buying guns and attending training classes, it seems odd that a female governor would take a stance against women being able to carry guns in their purses, glove compartments or briefcases. Men often wear suits and use the convenience of a holster, but while many women do wear suits, most do not on a daily basis.

Having a firearm and knowing how to use it is empowering to women. Talk about equal rights: Owning a firearm with proper training and skill is the No. 1 equalizer between the biological-physical disparity of most men and women. Long gone are the days when we “wimminfolk” had men in our households to protect us. Many women today live alone either by choice or circumstance. Relying on 911 is just not reliable enough, particularly in rural areas. How many young women have we heard about recently in the press who were abducted and killed? With a firearm, they would at least have had a chance.

I remember a few years back when an elderly woman way up in the North Country had a drunk man break into her home late at night. Her community did not have a local police force at night and relied on the state police. She was told when she called 911 that the soonest they could get there was a couple of hours. What if it had not been a drunk man but a violent one? The sound of pumping a shotgun is enough to stop intruders in their tracks and often results in a quick retreat.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation did a survey on women and guns in early 2015. The findings show that half of the women intended to buy a gun in the next year. The women in the study owned both semiautomatic pistols (56 percent) and shotguns (50 percent). Of the women in the survey, 73 percent had taken training classes. Here in New Hampshire, there are a number of training courses specializing in women’s shooting both for protection and for sport – and they fill quickly. The study showed a 60 percent increase in women who are target shooting. This has grown from 3.3 million women in 2001 to 5.4 million women in 2013. I personally know a female member of the press here in New Hampshire, a liberal Democrat, who regularly goes clay shooting. A report on CBS News in August 2014 pegged the number at more than 6 million – almost a 70 percent increase in a decade. Firearm retailers estimate women made up 20 percent of their sales in 2013. Since 23 percent of women say they personally own a gun, that puts the estimate at 28.1 million women. Ladies, guns aren’t just for men anymore! And they certainly aren’t just for Republican women.

I have been a firearm owner all of my adult life, had extensive firearms training and got my first concealed carry permit in my early 20s. My life has also been touched by losing my father to a gunshot. Did I blame the gun? No, I blamed the hand pulling the trigger. Does someone blame the credit card (or the credit card issuer) when a compulsive shopper runs up a card, or the card when an alcoholic buys booze and goes out and drives and kills someone, or the U.S. Mint when someone uses cash to buy drugs? Of course not. I bet there is a sharp knife in every kitchen in America, and there are deaths by knives. Do we ban or restrict knife ownership? Of course not.

The anti-gun lobby uses all kinds of red herrings to demonize gun ownership. I agree there are too many gun deaths in America, but when one takes a strong look at the statistics, one realizes that it is the type of “hands” using those guns. Gangs, violent criminals, drug addicts and those with mental illnesses who should not have a gun.

But do you deny millions and millions of law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves in their homes and businesses? Criminals will always be able to get guns. This is proven by the highest number of gun deaths happening in areas with the strictest and most limited ownership of firearms. And if you happen to live in those neighborhoods, not only are you unable to protect yourself, but in the current climate, police officers are getting more and more hesitant about going into these neighborhoods.

Those who demonize guns and push the premise that guns are dangerous and should be limited, banned, illegal and on and on do a real disservice by making people wary and afraid of them. Efforts should be focused on responsible ownership, and training in proper usage, safe storage and shooting skills.

I truly believe an armed America of law-abiding citizens is a safer America. Our forefathers surely thought so and enshrined that guiding principle in our Constitution, which was seconded in our own New Hampshire Constitution.

Firearm ownership: It’s not just for men anymore. Women are finding that gun ownership can be recreational, allow for confident independence in living alone, and serve as a real tool for self defense and protection.

(Fran Wendelboe is a former seven-term Republican legislator, longtime conservative grassroots activist and small-business owner. She lives in New Hampton.)

One sheriff’s deputy shot himself in the leg while pulling out his gun to confront a suspect.

Another accidentally fired a bullet in a restroom stall. A third deputy stumbled over a stroller in a closet as he was searching for a suspect, squeezing off a round that went through a wall and lodged in a piece of furniture in the next room.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

Sheriff’s officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon.

But the problems may not be over, as more deputies switch to the Smith & Wesson M&P9. In response, department officials have imposed extra training requirements.

The M&P has obvious benefits. It is easier to shoot accurately, can be fired more reliably under stress and is a better fit for people with small hands. The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff’s Academy. More recruits — including more women — are now passing the firearms test, and veteran deputies are also logging better scores at the firing range.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

At the New York Police Department, a rookie officer is facing criminal charges, including negligent homicide, in a fatal shooting in a housing project stairwell. An attorney for the officer says he accidentally fired his department-issued Glock.

A former Los Angeles Police Department officer who was paralyzed when his 3-year-old son shot him with a Glock has sued the gun manufacturer and others, alleging that the light trigger pull and lack of a safety mechanism contributed to the accident.

Bob Owens, editor of, says the design of the Glock and the M&P makes such tragedies more likely. “I don’t think, with the amount of training most agencies have, that a gun that has so few tolerances for mistakes is the best choice,” he said.

An adjustment

For two decades, L.A. County sheriff’s deputies carried the Beretta 92F, a heavy metal gun with a large grip.

People with small hands often have trouble flipping up the Beretta’s safety as they prepare to fire. The first shot requires 12 to 15 pounds of pressure on the trigger, forcing some to use two fingers and reducing shooting accuracy for many. Subsequent shots take about 4 pounds of pressure.

The M&P is made of lightweight polymer, with a hand grip that comes in three sizes. Firing a round is as simple as pulling the trigger with a consistent 6 to 8 pounds of pressure.

Sheriff’s deputies have the option of sticking with the Beretta, and some have, saying they are used to it. But many who have switched to the M&P say their shooting has improved.

“At first, I thought, ‘No way, I’m keeping my Beretta forever,'” said Sgt. Mike Rafter, a firearms instructor. “Then I started shooting, and it’s a lot nicer. I can shoot better, and I’m more confident.”

Read the rest @

Via David Codrea

“Tommy Gnosis is someone named Jennifer Mascia,” Herschel Smith at The Captain’s Journal posted in March. He was describing someone who, under cover of anonymity, “visits web sites — particularly gun rights web sites — and spreads discontent and dejection.”

That’s consistent with the “elaborate subterfuge” technique for “infiltrating and disrupting alternative media online” used by those with an agenda. Per Canadian research, such “Internet trolls aren’t just mean — they’re sadists and psychopaths.”

That would also seem consistent with the control-all megalomaniac who hired her, in a company-he-keeps kind of way. Mascia is one of two paid flacks “attached prominently to the Everytown news project,” an experiment in virtual Astroturf that billionaire Michael Bloomberg will be rolling out this summer.

The guy wants to control everything else, so why not the narrative?

What drives Mascia is anybody’s guess, but chances are her father having been an underworld killer with multiple hits under his belt had an influence. That probably comes as a surprise to many gun rights advocates, unaware that Al Jazeera told its readers “America’s best hope for tracking gun deaths is a mob enforcer’s daughter,” and Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action gushed on social media that her story was “Amazing.”

That Mascia’s primary female role model — a moral weakling of a mother who knew about, but nonetheless supported and covered up for the monster she was married to and did nothing to stop him — no doubt also had an influence. It also may explain an affinity for foolish and contemptible lackeys that provide cover for those who would take all choices away.

At this point, though, good people would still feel a degree of sympathy. After all, Mascia had no control over who her parents were or what they did. Their defects and failings were not her fault.

The problem is, she’s chosen to become part of an effort to make the rest of us defenseless against sociopath predators like her father, and enablers who help them kill, like her mother. She knows full well no “law” proposed by her billionaire patron would have any effect on stopping diseased animals like John Mascia from working his sick will on more victims.

The creepiest thing is the way Mascia rationalizes the homicidal punk using “shades of gray,” allowing her to view him as two unrelated personalities, “my dad and … this separate John,” and to write a book as “my way of honoring my parents [and] still loving them.”

There is no gray in the premeditated taking of human life for gain, nor any claim to honor. It is blackest evil. It must be stopped, and anyone interfering with your ability to do that is an ally of that evil. Grieving families of victims the Mascia thug murdered could have loved their fathers, sons or brothers as well.

So while empathy for a daughter dealing with traumatic stress is understandable, when coping defects are taken out on the rest of us, we’re under no obligation to tolerate resulting toxic and irrational damage. In the case of Meadow Soprano here, her “work” for Bloomberg would best be met with an invitation to take her damn Daddy Issues out on something else, and leave our rights alone.

Via David Codrea

Anti-gun Oregon Democrat State Senator Chuck Riley says the Supreme Court was “right for the time” for upholding the enslavement of blacks as Constitutional. His comments came after questioning by gun rights advocates who were attempting to understand his rational for supporting citizen disarmament edicts, and was recorded by videographer “LaughingAtLiberals.”

Historically, the courts have demonstrated a tolerance for tyranny and a deference to those who would enslave. That's why there were "laws" to ensure that slaves were not armed.

The Library of Congress

“But that wasn’t the end of it,” blogger Gateway Pundit noted. He embedded a second video, where Sen. Riley and his staffers were unable to explain how the “universal background check” edict would work at stopping violent criminals, or do anything besides provide a registration list of gun owners.

As for Riley’s slavery concession, we’ve seen such precedent-driven disconnects with freedom before, even with checks and balances in place. Without them, things get even worse. An activist court empowered to make up law on its own has the potential to impose enslavement via a complicit executive branch. A tyranny-minded legislature can write edicts that do the same, providing they can get them enforced without judicial restraint. An unchecked executive can use all sorts of justifications to impose despotism. And all three branches working in concert have pretty much brought us to the point where “shall not be infringed” has been rendered meaningless beyond what those in power will politically tolerate — for now.

That’s why the growing new paradigm represented by the “I will not comply” movement represents such a threat to those who would rule. Because ultimately, when the system results in tyranny, an armed people retain the power to nullify bad enforcement just as informed jurors have the power to nullify bad edicts. Of course the outcome of that is not assured (what is?), but to those who have made the choice between defiance and surrender, it beats the alternative.

That leads to some fair questions for the individual leaders of self-designated “gun rights groups” that call for enforcement of existing Intolerable Acts (gun laws), and who actually have publicly joined with anti-gunners in disparaging civil disobedience activists as “extremists”: If, years from now, with a shifted Supreme Court majority enabled by an unchallengeable electorate (something foreseen by another Oregon Democrat), a new ruling reverses Heller and says it’s Constitutional for the government to start rounding up registered guns and jailing anyone who has not obeyed, will you urge defiance and resistance, or will you ask your members to plead with their oppressors (and send a donation)? If the former, why wait until things become so desperate? And if the latter, why shouldn’t we know now if you ever envision a line in the sand?

Via David Codrea

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson shares the spotlight with another notorious gun-grabber, Attorney General Eric Holder.

Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.

Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts. Ohio Revised Code claims preemption by the state in the field of non-federal firearms regulation, and the matter was supposedly already settled when the City of Cleveland lost against the state in 2010, with the Supreme Court of Ohio “uphold[ing] as Constitutional state law displacing local gun-control ordinances.”

In addition to the duplicate laws and creation of a “gun offender registry,” the Cleveland diktats create several new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, including presuming to dictate reporting requirements for private sales (creating a de facto registry) and to impose storage mandates. Ohio Code declares “a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition,” meaning the city has nothing lawful to say about imposing constraints. The new decree also imposes a stolen gun reporting requirement that would appear to exempt criminals, as requiring them to attest they were in violation of the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun in the first place would also require self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Rather than directly addressing Councilman Reed’s challenge to show how the new edicts would have prevented any of the 25 homicides the city has experienced so far this year, supporters of the legislation offered unsubstantiated platitudes. Safety Director Michael McGrath fell back on the “possibility of saving a life” talking point used to restrict the rights of everyone else while saving nothing and no one. Councilman Michael Polensek even admitted “the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop,” and Council President Kevin Kelley “said that the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence” and instead offered bromides about “council’s values and … good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

In other words, knowing full well what they are imposing will accomplish no reduction in violent crime, and in fact, violate Ohio law, they are nonetheless using the coercive force of the city to mandate citizen compliance — or else. But the desperate to appear effective politicians behind the scam will all get their names in the press and claim bragging rights that they are both “doing something” and showing leadership.

In any legitimate field of endeavor, that would be considered not just malpractice, but outright shameless fraud.

UPDATE: From an email alert received moments after publishing this article:

Read the rest @

Via David Codrea

Mark Walters, host of the weekly nationally-syndicated “Armed American Radio” program, began broadcasting “Daily Defense” Monday afternoon, a newly-redesigned AAR website informed listeners and fans. The one-hour Monday through Friday program is in addition to the three-hour program that airs every Sunday.

“I’m extremely excited to be filling your prescription for freedom on a daily basis,” Walters announced. “If you’re a fan of the wildly popular Sunday evening broadcast then you’re already aware of topic specific talk radio…usually reserved for weekend programming.”

“Mark brings hard hitting talk about the right to bear arms for self defense to the nation’s airwaves,” Salem Radio Network, the distributor for “Armed American Radio” and “Daily Defense” noted. “A one of a kind program focusing on the right to carry concealed handguns, safety and training, politics and everything else related to the right to bear arms for self preservation, Mark interviews some of the biggest nationally recognized names in the field of self-defense and tells the truth about concealed carry that the mainstream media simply ignores.”

The addition of daily programming will allow for breaking news to be discussed in a timelier manner than the once-a-week schedule has previously allowed. Meanwhile, the weekly three-hour show will still allow for multiple issues, guests and in-depth explorations of topics. Together, the programs will complement each other and fill a largely untapped market niche.

“Armed American Radio’s Daily Defense with Mark Walters” is being distributed in several markets nationwide, the AmmoLand website reported. Walters told Gun Rights Examiner in a telephone interview this afternoon that a listing of stations carrying the new program, including local variations in airing times, will be forthcoming. Until then, listeners can access the program by clicking “Listen Live” on the AAR website, weekdays at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

New gun legislation would push back against a controversial policy from the Obama administration effectively banning armor-piercing ammunition.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) proposed last week to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing and selling 5.56mm projectiles for M855 cartridges that provide ammunition for AR-15 rifles.

But the move is causing an uproar among Republicans, who suggest it would trample on hunters’ Second Amendment rights.

The Protecting Second Amendment Rights Act, introduced Friday by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), would roll back the ATF’s power to regulate ammunition.

“The Obama administration’s proposal would unilaterally strip law-abiding hunters and sportsmen of their Second Amendment rights,” Rooney said in a statement. “Congress has made its intentions clear that this ammunition is for sporting purposes and should not be restricted. We cannot and we will not stand by while the Obama administration tramples on the Constitution, the rule of law, and the Second Amendment rights of hunters.”

AR-15 rifles are popular with some hunters, but they provide a big cause for concern for law enforcement officials because they can fire bullets to penetrate bullet-proof vests.

To date, the ammunition for AR-15s has been exempt from the Law Enforcement Officers Act, but the ATF’s draft framework would change that.

“No final determinations have been made and we won’t make any determinations until we’ve reviewed the comments submitted by industry, law enforcement and the public at large,” ATF spokesman Corey Ray told The Hill last week.

But Republicans are looking to pre-empt the ammunition restrictions. The Protecting Second Amendment Rights Act would “would prohibit the ATF or any other federal agency from issuing or enforcing any new restriction or prohibition on the manufacture, importation or sale of ammunition in the United States.”