VA's restricted ammo law

Peter, let me know what/if any assistance I can render.

******************************
There are many stupid laws we all need to work on getting changed.

Now, personally I'm not going to worry about this stupid law just like I don't concern myself with the 1000ft school non sense.

Heck, if I choose to worry about all the nonsense laws that were, are and shall be I'd never leave the house.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx



Barnes Tac/XP will remain as my primary EDC load.
5.7 SS192 will remain as my long gun (so to speak) HD rd.

Everyone please read again.

"B. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly USEor attempt to USE restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime. ..."

"Use" not posses as in ones pocket while committing a crime.

Rotating inclined plane on a rod.

mobeewan said:

Everyone please read again.

"B. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly USEor attempt to USE restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime. ..."

"Use" not posses as in ones pocket while committing a crime.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any prosecutor who would try to twist "use" into a pretzel... /sarc off/

AtackDuck said:

I don't know of any prosecutor who would try to twist "use" into a pretzel... /sarc off/

Click to expand...

:shocker:

Marco I sent you a PM

mobeewan said:

Everyone please read again.

"B. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly USEor attempt to USE restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime. ..."

"Use" not posses as in ones pocket while committing a crime.

Click to expand...

I realize that your arguing from the standpoint of a LAC in mere possession, but be careful here. The statute may say "possess", but it doesn't define "attempt". If some (over)zealous CA wants to press the issue, s/he might argue that the mere possession of these prohibited rounds (in one's pocket) at the crime scene (could be construed as) enabling the perp to attempt their use in the commission of the crime. And, since these arguments won't be heard until court proceedings begin, the individual could still be arrested under such a charge.

Just because you've decided to have lunch at Panera while OCing and carrying your supply of these restricted rounds in your pocket and find yourself the object of attention of an anonymous attempted armed robbery report, the conditions stated in this statute may not be helpful.

Speaking with USER at the picnic his advice was he would not risk carrying those restricted rounds and if my memory is correct his reasoning was as follows:
In nearly every use of a firearm in self defense, the person discharging the weapon is arrested and charges filed. (I assume here to get the person in custody and not legally able to carry a weapon even while out on bail while the investigation is conducted. the charges may be dropped but initially they are filed). This allows the DA to "add" another class 5 felony to the list and every charge you have to defend against exponentially complicates the defense teams chore not to mention the expense. It also adds to the pressure on an innocent person to accept a plea bargin as the Max sentence you could be looking at when you add up all the various charges can be overwhelming and cause an innocent man to plead guilty to a lesser charge so he doesn't run the risk of the worst case scenario. (user had some choice comments for the majority of lawyers out there who claim to be versed in firearm/2A law). Bottom line in his advice was the risks of carrying restricted ammo greatly outweigh any benefits as there are plenty of good rounds available that are not restricted.

Again, this is my recollection and understanding of the advice but I could have misunderstood something so please don't take this with the same degree of faith as hearing it directly from USER.

Sounds reasonable and as always...if User says it, I listen.
Now if he would only chime in with exact wording on the changes.

Baked on Grease said:

It's just another of the modifier laws to make an already illegal act more illegal.

Click to expand...

Remember your history? It was the hysteria of non-LEOs having the audacity to possess Armor-Piercing Bullets -- you BAD PERSON - how DARE you have cop-killer bullets!

Of course, back then, no one wanted to be accused of being anti-cop.

Repeater said:

Remember your history? It was the hysteria of non-LEOs having the audacity to possess Armor-Piercing Bullets -- you BAD PERSON - how DARE you have cop-killer bullets!

Of course, back then, no one wanted to be accused of being anti-cop.

Click to expand...

Yet the "teflon" coated bullets did not penetrate a bullet resistant vest any better than their non-coated counterparts.

Grapeshot said:

Yet the "teflon" coated bullets did not penetrate a bullet resistant vest any better than their non-coated counterparts.

Click to expand...

Well, of course facts matter to us. Facts do not matter to antigun fanatics.

Demagogues won't allow facts to get in their way.

Grapeshot said:

Yet the "teflon" coated bullets did not penetrate a bullet resistant vest any better than their non-coated counterparts.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is, most vests won't stop rifle rounds like the one's I shoot from my Contenders and Encores. I don't hear any moaning and groaning about them though.

The other thing that bothers me about this statute is lead wheel weights are getting hard to find. Most of the lead like weights I'm getting are zinc, I cast them and shoot them but they aren't lead and subject to this stupid law.

Peter i would just add some lead to the ot when you are casting then its not "wholly comprised" of a material other than lead. Make sure to put enough lead in for the lab to be able to find it.

Marco said:

§ 18.2-308.3. Use or attempted use of restricted ammunition in commission or attempted commission of crimes prohibited; penalty.

A. When used in this section:


"Restricted firearm ammunition" applies to bullets, projectiles or other types of ammunition that are: (i) coated with or contain, in whole or in part, polytetrafluorethylene or a similar product, (ii) commonly known as "KTW" bullets or "French Arcanes," or (iii) any cartridges containing bullets coated with a plastic substance with other than lead or lead alloy cores, jacketed bullets with other than lead or lead alloy cores, or cartridges of which the bullet itself is wholly comprised of a metal or metal alloy other than lead. This definition shall not be construed to include shotgun shells or solid plastic bullets.


B. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use or attempt to use restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime. Violation of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct felony and any person found guilty thereof shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.


(1983, c. 602; 1988, c. 530


Just so some of you are aware of this.
As the subject came up at the picnic on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Does this statute apply to steel-core 5.56 rounds or JHPs that have some sort of 'plastic' insert to prevent fabric from clogging the hollow?

We need the Democrats on this

We must fix this law so we may use GREEN non poluting ammo. They are forcing us to use "icky" lead bullets when we have eco-friendly choices in the marketplace. My solid copper and frangible rounds are lead free. This poorly crafted law forces us to polute the environment.

Hey, this could work

peter nap said:

Sounds reasonable and as always...if User says it, I listen.
Now if he would only chime in with exact wording on the changes.

Click to expand...

How about: "Repealed"?

Roscoe

mobeewan said:

Everyone please read again.

"B. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly USEor attempt to USE restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime. ..."

"Use" not posses as in ones pocket while committing a crime.

Click to expand...

AtackDuck said:

I don't know of any prosecutor who would try to twist "use" into a pretzel... /sarc off/

Click to expand...

Your Honor, the Defendent had these rounds in his pocket, and was USING them as ballast to stand straight.

roscoe13 said:

How about: "Repealed"?

Roscoe

Click to expand...

The problem with that Roscoe, is it won't be. Not now anyway.
First we need to pull it's teeth then kill it when there's a better political environment.

I'd love to repeal a lot of laws but it's a major job and there is a pretty small work crew.

ak56 said:

Your Honor, the Defendent had these rounds in his pocket, and was USING them as ballast to stand straight.

Click to expand...

Hey Hey that's Grapeshot's excuse.
:lol:

ak56 said:

Your Honor, the Defendent had these rounds in his pocket, and was USING them as ballast to stand straight.

Click to expand...

Wolf_shadow said:

Hey Hey that's Grapeshot's excuse.
:lol:

Click to expand...

Only works if I face directly into the wind

peter nap said:

Sounds reasonable and as always...if User says it, I listen.
Now if he would only chime in with exact wording on the changes.

Click to expand...

That was a pretty good summary.

Tried some new anti-virus software that ended up crippling the hard drives in three of my machines, so I've been incommunicado since the pic-a-pig. One's completely dead, one I fixed by doing a low-level format on the HD, the third required reinstalling the firmware on the HD. In each case the original symptom was a corrupted partition table. So much for the anti-malware!