Does the Chicago firearms ordinance ban rifle ammo?

[LoginName]

Chicagos ordinance as it pertains to "metal piercing bullet(s)" isn't as clearly defined as the federal prohibition on armor piercing ammo/bullets... the materials based determination is rather short, and it also includes a performance based definition
(remember when Ted Kennedy introduced a performance based "armor piercing ammo" ban that would have banned just about every rifle caliber?)...

“Metal piercing bullet” means any bullet that is manufactured with other than a lead or lead alloy core, or ammunition of which the bullet itself is wholly composed of, or machined from, a metal or metal alloy other than lead, or any other bullet that is manufactured to defeat penetrate bullet resistant properties of soft body armor or any other type of bullet resistant clothing which meets the minimum requirements of the current National Institute for Justice Standards for “Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor.”

Even though the law uses the term "manufactured to defeat", and
since it can be easily shown that most rifle ammo is capable of penetrating "soft body armor", it would seem to me that if Daley and the CPD apply a loose definition of "manufactured" (as opposed to a more clearly defined term like "designed and manufactured with the sole intent"), they could effectively ban rifle ammo.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...n-registration-20B-with-offender-registry.pdf

 

[maee]

Yes, but it exempts lead bullets, which are 99% of bullets. The only thing that would be caught are the solid copper bullets that some big game hunters use. Fortunately, for self-defense and 99% of hunting, its a non-issue. I'd like to criticize Chicago, but honestly, they are exempting lead core bullets...

 

[Turbocharged]

A lot of surplus 7.62x54R is steel core.
Pathetic. Canada can have the whole of Chicago. F this S.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Yes, but it exempts lead bullets, which are 99% of bullets. The only thing that would be caught are the solid copper bullets that some big game hunters use. Fortunately, for self-defense and 99% of hunting, its a non-issue. I'd like to criticize Chicago, but honestly, they are exempting lead core bullets...

...And lead free bullets, which are apparently a growing market, and even required in some other parts of the country. If you'd like to criticize Chicago, go right ahead...because this is still B.S.

 

[Gonzo]

That's funny. It's like having three year olds write the spec sheets for a space shuttle.

 

[Turbocharged]

That's funny. It's like having three year olds write the spec sheets for a space shuttle.

And when it all blows up they'll blame the pilots.

 

[Bill Nance]

A lot of surplus 7.62x54R is steel core.
Pathetic. Canada can have the whole of Chicago. F this S.

Canada called, they said they don't want it. Not even if we pay them to take it.

 

[Turbocharged]

Canada called, they said they don't want it. Not even if we pay them to take it.

Ahhh well.
I suppose napalm is always an option...

 

[pipmaster1971]

While I'm not sure of the legality of rifle ammunition with this legislation, I'm worried we are going to see more sh*t like this. The anti-states and cities have pretty much realized that egregious legislation to ban whole categories of guns isn't going to stand up in court. What is more complex and difficult to fight are these sneaky bits of legislation that really seek to make gun ownership such a pain in the but that no one other than lawyers can dare figure out what is legal and what is illegal.

 

[Len-2A Training]

While I'm not sure of the legality of rifle ammunition with this legislation, I'm worried we are going to see more sh*t like this. The anti-states and cities have pretty much realized that egregious legislation to ban whole categories of guns isn't going to stand up in court. What is more complex and difficult to fight are these sneaky bits of legislation that really seek to make gun ownership such a pain in the but that no one other than lawyers can dare figure out what is legal and what is illegal.

MA is way ahead of the curve on this!

 

[KMaurer]

Where do you find this purported "exemption" for lead ammunition? The definition of evil baby-killing metal-piercing bullets includes all non-lead bullets or any other bullet (i.e., lead bullet) that is manufactured to defeat soft body armor. Since they'll never limit the interpretation of the second clause to include a requirement of intent, that means most any rifle ammunition, and some common handgun ammunition (e.g., most 7.62x25, some .38super).

Ken

 

[Bill Nance]

While I'm not sure of the legality of rifle ammunition with this legislation, I'm worried we are going to see more sh*t like this. The anti-states and cities have pretty much realized that egregious legislation to ban whole categories of guns isn't going to stand up in court. What is more complex and difficult to fight are these sneaky bits of legislation that really seek to make gun ownership such a pain in the but that no one other than lawyers can dare figure out what is legal and what is illegal.

Did you not expect that? No disrespect intended but were you seriously under the impression that states/cities where guns are considered to be worse than rapists wouldn't try to weasel their way into defacto bans? This was always going to be the main battle ground post-Heller. We'll be years and years sorting through all these laws, getting the courts to define "reasonable restrictions" in more detail and getting a verdict on what does and does not legally constitute a defacto ban on large categories of guns and ammo. That's the next step in the process.

 

[strangenh]

Canada called, they said they don't want it. Not even if we pay them to take it.

Mexico says they'll take it... but only if we pay shipping.

 

[strangenh]

Where do you find this purported "exemption" for lead ammunition? The definition of evil baby-killing metal-piercing bullets includes all non-lead bullets or any other bullet (i.e., lead bullet) that is manufactured to defeat soft body armor. Since they'll never limit the interpretation of the second clause to include a requirement of intent, that means most any rifle ammunition, and some common handgun ammunition (e.g., most 7.62x25, some .38super).

That's not new law. That part of the ordinance has been in place since the 1990s, and has not been interpreted as you describe. It's classically vague, but as a criminal statute, ambiguities cannot be interpreted against the defendant. I'll anticipate the obvious response that the city will just do that anyhow, and reply that, well, then they can just arrest anyone for anything by that light. But Chicago has been notoriously loath to enforce the pickier parts of the ordinance at the edge of interpretation, since the chilling effect is vastly more useful to the administration than actual enforcement. I expect them to continue on that course.