Now that that's been settled, how about giving us back the surplus 5.45x39mm rifle ammunition that BATFE decided on equally dubious grounds to declare "armor piercing handgun ammunition."
If anything, the 5.45x39mm surplus ban is even worse. There are no and never have been any 5.45x39mm handguns, unless you count prototypes manufactured by a single defunct firm in Tennessee prior to sending BATFE a letter to request approval for manufacturing them. Oh, and it also happens that clear language of the 1986 law specifically defines "armor piercing" projectiles as "larger than .22 caliber." A 5.45mm rifle uses a projectile of .220" to .221" diameter, and the rifle's barrel typically has a bore diameter of 0.214" to 0.215" and will NOT admit a .220" diameter bore gauge. Therefore 5.45x39mm is smaller than .22 caliber by legal definition and legally exempt from the 1986 "cop killer bullet" ban, even if 5.45mm handguns existed, which they don't.
Now that that's been settled, how about giving us back the surplus 5.45x39mm rifle ammunition that BATFE decided on equally dubious grounds to declare "armor piercing handgun ammunition."
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the 5.45x39mm surplus ban is even worse. There are no and never have been any 5.45x39mm handguns, unless you count prototypes manufactured by a single defunct firm in Tennessee prior to sending BATFE a letter to request approval for manufacturing them. Oh, and it also happens that clear language of the 1986 law specifically defines "armor piercing" projectiles as "larger than .22 caliber." A 5.45mm rifle uses a projectile of .220" to .221" diameter, and the rifle's barrel typically has a bore diameter of 0.214" to 0.215" and will NOT admit a .220" diameter bore gauge. Therefore 5.45x39mm is smaller than .22 caliber by legal definition and legally exempt from the 1986 "cop killer bullet" ban, even if 5.45mm handguns existed, which they don't.