DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week, pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.
To make cartridge cases eligible for sale once again, DoD demilitarization officials verified that the cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for use within the United States, and then executed the recategorization. Whereas during the brief suspension, fired cartridge cases would have been releaseable only if the purchaser crushed or smelted them, now the cases may be sold as before, intact and reloadable.
DoD also assured NRA-ILA that companies previously authorized to purchase cartridge cases under Trade Security Controls need no further vetting at this time, and are eligible to resume purchasing cases under the policy adopted yesterday.
That tends to play against this being any nefarious conspiracy by the Obama Administration, which is a shame, because I like a good nefarious conspiracy. Now if we can just get the DoD to start surplussing live ammunition to civilian shooters, we’ll really be in business.
O.K., so this time, it was merely the DoD not knowing what to do with it, but it still points out how vulnerable the civilian ammo supply is to 2A attacks, compared to the supply of guns. And a gun without ammo is just an expensive and awkward club.
“That tends to play against this being any nefarious conspiracy by the Obama Administration, which is a shame, because I like a good nefarious conspiracy.”
Sadly I think you’re right on this one. I do maintain that under Obama, Holder and Emanuel, enemy action is at least as likely a general explanation as happenstance. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and assuming good faith actually fails Occam’s razor.
For some reason I can see Rahm saying “No, no, it wasn’t me. I did not order it. But I would have been brilliant if I had.” with a bit of a disappointed look on his face.
It has to pain them to leave the gun issue alone because of political pressure. Especially since it’s been hamstringing their legislative agenda in Congress.
“by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security”
9/11 was how long ago?
They just now started worrying about this in terms of “national security”?
Yeah, nothing suspicious at all about that.
If the answer to that is just that .gov is full of worthless dipshits I guess I could live with that, but I QUESTION THE TIMING!!11 etc, etc.
Surplus LIVE ammo to all of us revolutionary civilians??
That is SO yesterday… Rhambo and *The One* do not think this is a good thing. Move along, nothing to see here, move along John Spartan, Dr. Cocteau is expecting you in re-education class now, move along…
The government wouldn’t even have to surplus to all civilians to make things better for us. If they surplused their ammo to police departments, that would free up a lot more of what is being manufactured for the rest of us, while still appeasing the fragile brains of Obama and his peers.
.50 cal still has to be crushed under the new policy. They still got their little bite out of the policy change. Bit by bit, the anti-2nd amendment traitors will take away our right. Net loss for the good guys after all this was said and done.
Ben, where is your information coming from? The only copy of a letter I’ve read mentioning caliber size says 50mm and up. What the hell are you reloading that takes a 50mm?
I had a little difficulty with the “nefarious conspiracy” theory anyway, especially considering that O has seated very few of his own political appointments into DoD so far. This issue is pretty far down in the weeds, so I wouldn’t expect even a zealous anti-gun administration to get around to it until year 2 or 3.
Still, DLA’s explanation (linked from the NRA-ILA page) doesn’t completely make sense. If this was just a temporary halt for a review of a Bush Administration policy change, why would they implement it now, and why would their letter to Georgia Arms imply that it was a permanent policy change? Something doesn’t add up.