Tag Archives: Ban

ATF could ban .223 ammunition by reclassification

This article has a correction. Please click HERE to read.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has released a plan which would reclassify the popular .223 (M855) round as an armor piercing round.

This particular ammo type is most commonly used in all AR-15 style rifles, and if the ammo were to be reclassified, these firearms would be rendered obsolete without the proper ammo.

Reclassification of the .223 round as an armor piercing round would effectively ban sales of the round to all civilians under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA says any ammo “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” is the only ammo allowed to be sold to the general public. The ATF defines armor piercing rounds, though, as any ammo which is meant to penetrate body armor and was manufactured for military or police use.

However, the GCA was amended in 1986 to allow exceptions in the original Act. The amended Act, therefore, allows armor piercing rounds to be sold to”government agencies,” as well as “for testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.” 

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action though, is calling the new ban a “continuation of Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.”

The NRA-ILA also said by definition, the .223 (M855) round cannot be classified as armor piercing because the law lists a number of metals, such as tungsten alloy, steel, or even depleted uranium, which are used in the cores of armor piercing rounds. The .223 (M855) round however has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and “therefore should never be considered ‘armor piercing,'” according to the NRA-ILA.

The ATF has said they will accept comments on the new framework for 30 days, and the comments will be taken into consideration for the final draft of the framework.


This article has a correction. Please click HERE to read.

Judge Rules WA Law Banning Medical Marijuana Ads Unconstitutional

“I find the statute impermissibly overbroad as it chills even informational speech aimed solely at public education,” said Pierce County, WA Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Martin in a written decision explaining why she ruled a Washington state law banning medical marijuana advertisements unconstitutional. According to Courthouse News Service, the law in question banned doctors from making “any statement or reference, visual or otherwise, on the medical use of marijuana in any advertisement.”

The Yakima Herald-Republic notes that the decision came in response to a suit against the state filed on behalf of Dr. Scott Havsy, a local doctor and osteopath who was punished by the state for producing advertisements that pointed out some of the ailments that qualify an individual to seek treatment via medical marijuana and that included an image of a marijuana leaf. Back in July of 2012, Washington’s Department of Health slapped Dr. Havsy with an unprofessional conduct charge for which he was fined, barred from continuing to run his advertisements, and placed on probation.

Havsy argued through legal representation that his advertising content is protected commercial speech and that the ban unduly burdened patients seeking treatment, as they could not discover through advertising which doctors offer medical marijuana prescriptions. The Yakima Herald-Republic quoted Havsy’s lawyer Mark Olson as arguing, “The only restrictions that should be placed on professional advertising are to be sure the advertising is not false or misleading. Other than that, when the government restricts advertising by professionals, it places a chilling effect on the free flow of information, especially on the Internet.”

Assistant Attorney General Joyce Roper represented the state and argued that the First Amendment does not protect advertisements concerning illegal products. Though marijuana is legal for both medical and recreational use in Washington, it is still subject to a federal ban.

Judge Martin disagreed with both attorneys’ contention that Havsy’s speech was merely commercial in nature, but said that it may instead be in the public’s interest, noting that many of the statements in his advertisements came from state-run websites. “It is difficult to understand, for example, how a link to the state’s own website and a recitation of the language of Chapter 59.51A on medical marijuana harms public health and safety,” said Martin according to Courthouse News Service, noting that some of the content in Havsy’s ads helped spread health information recognized by the state.

“I find that the restriction set forth in the statute at issue is far more extensive than necessary as it bars any advertisement in any form, regardless of the message, format, context, etc… The result of this statute is that the public cannot be informed by any health care provider, including Dr. Havsy, as to whether that provider is even available or willing to perform the required medical exam for the certificate of use,” said Judge Martin. She was also troubled by the fact that “even a published statement by a health care provider, purely neutral and informational in nature, potentially violates the blanket prohibitions of this statute.”

Judge Martin said that, while the state can not ban medical pot ads outright, it does have an interest in regulating them to ensure that they do not make false or misleading statements. She wrote, “I do not take lightly the import of this decision and expect that this ruling will not be the final word on the subject.” Judge Martin granted a stay on the penalties placed on Dr. Havsy.

Ben Swann took on the federal government’s mixed messages on medical marijuana in a recent Truth in Media expose. Watch in the embedded player, found below.

The Pleasure Police Strikes Again! Washington State School District Bans Cupcakes

Parents, remember birthday treats? The cupcakes and cookies you indulged in to celebrate a classmate’s birthday. Well, they’re now a distant memory like Aquanet hairspray and acid-washed blue jeans for the children in one school district in Washington state.

According to the Washington Times, the Wellness Committee of Edmonds School District, outside Seattle, stated in its guide to schools that classroom birthday parties may be celebrated with non-food treats only.

Food treats can be eaten in the classroom three times per year.

Apparently, the State now has to regulate cupcake intake.

A spokesman for the school district told the media it’s not healthy for a cupcake party to be thrown for every student on their birthday, according to Fox 6.

Apparently, the district was inspired by the First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program.

“We’re not just talking about one cupcake a year, we’re talking about 25 cupcakes a year,” said DJ Jakala, spokeswoman for the Edmonds School District.

Not everyone is excited for the discontinuation of birthday treats though.

“It’s not necessarily the district’s job to control that, to take away from everybody, it’s overreaching,” parent Marcus Shelton said.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” anti-obesity campaign and her disciples apparently believe that sugar is the new “crack cocaine.”

Last year, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski blasted soda makers saying, ‘It’s killing our children. It’s liquid sugar and sugar is poison.”

Has the pleasure police gone too far by banning cupcakes from the classroom? Please comment below.

Follow Joshua Cook On Facebook & Twitter.

School Bans Christmas Trees, Kids From Wearing “Christmas Colors” & Saying Merry Christmas

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed the “Merry Christmas Bill” last June. The bill was designed to nullify legal risks of saying “Merry Christmas” and protect Christmas iconography in public schools.

Regardless of the new state law, an elementary school in  Frisco, Texas has recently banned students from wearing green and red colors, making references to the Christian holiday, and Christmas trees from an upcoming “winter party”.

One parent forwarded the email from the school planner to Texas Rep. Pat Fallon. Rep. Fallow says the rules violate the new state law. Rep. Fallon contacted the school district and was informed that it was not a district wide policy. He was then informed by the PTA that children were allowed to say Merry Christmas.

The school district released the following statement:

“The school was unaware of this and it was not an official PTA correspondence either. There have never been any limitations on what students wear, what they bring to share with their classmates on party days … what greetings people exchange with each other.”

However, he later received a follow up email from a PTA member that stated organizers decided to keep everything in place, as originally planned, in an attempt to not offend anyone.

Regardless of the school district’s statement, “It’s my understanding that nothing has changed,” responded Rep. Fallon to Fox News investigators.

Follow Michael Lotfi On Facebook & Twitter