Monday, November 30, 2015 by Tim Brown
On November 17, Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before the House Judiciary Committee and was questioned as to why neither the Department of Justice nor the unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) have failed to respond to at least 32 petitions, some of which are 4-years-old, to manufacturers petitioning exemptions for non-traditional ammunition that is to be used for “sporting purposes.”
Oh, the irony that is involved in all of this is utterly amazing. Can you imagine the founding fathers having to petition the government to manufacture ammunition? Ammunition that is clearly protected under the Second Amendment that they wrote? I can’t, especially for such a thing as “sporting purposes.”
Anyway, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) confronted Lynch over the fact that even hunters in the area he represents are “being forced to use alternative non-lead ammunition because manufacturers can’t make brass or steel core ammunition for a 30.06 or a .270 deer hunting rifle, unless they get a waver saying it’s primarily intended for sporting purposes and that waiver has to come the Attorney General.”
Ratcliffe then referenced the 32 petitions that are over 4 years old that have never been responded to. He then asked why they have not been responded to and when can those companies expect a response.
Lynch “thanked” the Congressman for raising the question, but wasn’t aware of those petitions.
Obviously, she wasn’t aware. She wasn’t Attorney General at the time.
Lynch did say that she would look into it and provide an answer.
The Congressman apparently forgot that she was not Attorney General until recently and asked if she had discussed it with anyone.
He continued to press Lynch about the US code that places that responsibility upon the Attorney General and Lynch acknowledged that is part of her responsibilities.
Now, I’m not fan of Lynch. She is a constitution violator who should never have been confirmed as AG. She should have been impeached in her prior office for the multitude of constitutional violations involving stealing people’s properties in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. However, with that said, I’m not expecting her to actually give a real response to the questions asked of her. I’m expecting she will continue on a path like her previous predecessor and criminal AG Eric Holder.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, who posted the video, added to their video description:
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), most ammunition made with alternative material is illegal to import, manufacture and sell unless ATF, which reports to Lynch, determines it is “primarily intended to be used for a sporting purpose.” Manufacturers have been working to develop and market new hunting ammunition comprised of an array of metals that encounter the composition test and therefore subject to an ATF ruling. ATF’s refusal to apply the sporting purposes test for this ammunition is causing uncertainty as companies cannot determine whether to invest in the research and development needed to foster advancements in high performance, cost-effective ammunition.
In response, U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) has introduced H.R. 3802, the Alternative Ammunition Manufacturing Act of 2015 that would require ATF to respond within 60 days to a petition, and if the petition is not granted, provide in writing detailed reasons for the disapproval. If the ATF does not act with 60 days, the ammunition would be granted an exemption from classification as armor piercing. Write your U.S. representative (https://www.nssf.org/GovRel/takeActio…). Ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 3802, the Alternative Ammunition Manufacturing Act of 2015.
The more specific thing that should be done is to seek the elimination of the unconstitutional ATF. Since the Second Amendment does not provide for any restricting or regulating of arms, it doesn’t provide for the restricting and regulating of ammunition either. Since Congress can’t write law regarding those things, which is why the keeping and bearing of arms is considered a right given by God, then the Executive Branch has no business attempting to enforce something that Congress has not been given authority to write law about.
Why do people continue to chop at branches when the root is right there? Why will they not challenge the constitutionality of any alleged authority or pretended legislation put forth by those in Washington, DC illegally usurp? Wouldn’t that be a better means of dealing with the issue completely? This writer believes it would.