You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Studies about velocity, the capacity to pierce armor, etc., are good fodder for the legislative fight, but this isn't a legislative fight. Congress said, "ammunition with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing. Armor piercing ammo is banned." IIUC, ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
jrinne0430
New member
Anyone else receiving undeliverable or delayed email response to the APAComments@atf.gov address? I sent my response at 1340 yesterday and received "unable to deliver this message after 1 day" response 0130 this morning.
Studies about velocity, the capacity to pierce armor, etc., are good fodder for the legislative fight, but this isn't a legislative fight. Congress said, "ammunition with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing. Armor piercing ammo is banned." IIUC, ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
Spot on again, Spats!
How is it that people don't get this?
The fine points of what the m855 will do or not due, barrel length, velocity, etc, are all good technical stuff. None of which applies to the ATF's decision at all. Discussing them here, now, is just a ..distraction.
Mosin-Marauder
New member
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-batfe-banning-xm855-ammunition/XrvVh1cj
There is a petition that has amassed a large amount of signatures lately. I signed it, please take the time to do so yourself.
There is a petition that has amassed a large amount of signatures lately. I signed it, please take the time to do so yourself.
Mosin-Marauder
New member
Took 2 or 3 min. for my email to come through. Check spam maybe?
ATF is simply now claiming that M855/SS109 has Characteristics X, Y and Z.
Exactly.
This appears to me to be a carefully inexact reading of the statute.
In the linked ATF document explaining their thinking, we see the discussion move from a legal definition of armor piercing (AP) as
a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, st
eel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium;
to a statement that AP includes
any ammunition containing the specified metal content “which may be used in a handgun.”
"containing" and "constructed entirely" are not the same thing.
It appears that ATF is adopting a definition of "core" to include any part of the interior of a bullet, no matter how small. Presumably under this definition, a bullet containing a thin needle of steel (or one of the other listed materials) in the middle of a traditional lead core would likewise be classed as AP. In short, any core constructed of a composite of listed and unlisted materials would meet their suggested definition (unless, perhaps it was a homogenous alloy).
ATF's proposed reading of the definition of core renders the phrase constructed "entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances)" in the statute above meaningless. In the tradition of not reading statutes so as to have no effect, this reading must be incorrect.
Nor is it necessary to interpret the language in the way that ATF suggests in order to reach a meaningful reading of the statute. Had congress intended to ban composite core bullets they could have chosen language along the lines of "constructed using" rather than "constructed entirely". But they did not, suggesting the ATF's proposed reading is not in line with the original intent of Congress.
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use? I used APAComments@atf.gov and it came back as undeliverable almost 12hrs after sending it.
Anyone else receiving undeliverable or delayed email response to the APAComments@atf.gov address? I sent my response at 1340 yesterday and received "unable to deliver this message after 1 day" response 0130 this morning.
It seems that it worked for me. I sent my Email at around 1700 yesterday and have not received any "undelivered" notice.
I also just mailed letter to my reps and signed the online white house petition posted my Mosin-Marauder
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
OK, I have boiled down the key points that ATF is relying on in their memo. These are assertions by ATF that must be attacked. If we remove these keystones, ATF's rationale falls apart:
1. M855 is armor-piercing as defined under (i) of the statute (already discussed here; but relies primarily on the "two core" interpretation)
2. Primarily intended must focus on the “likely use” of that item in the general community, not the subjective intent of the designer or user (this is in direct contradiction to the stance ATF takes on the SIG brace which says the intent of the user changes the design intent of the weapon)
3. When the only readily available handgun for a projectile is objectively sporting, then it can be reasonably inferred the primary intent is also sporting.
4. It is not possible to conclude that revolvers, semi-auto handguns or two-round derringers are primarily intended for use in sporting purposes (surely we can come up with many good arguments against this)
5. ATF has recognized that SS109 is suitable for target shooting (a sport the ATF also recognizes as a “suitable sporting purposes”) in 1986. (Don't want to attack this; but draw attention to the fact)
6. AR handguns and semi-auto handguns accepting SS109 were not commercially available in 1986; but are now available (Gwinn Armpistol predated SS109 by almost 20 years – any other examples of pre-1986 semi-auto .223 handguns?)
7. Withdrawing the exemption on SS109 will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition (under Federal law only, will place individuals under criminal possession under state law that relies on Federal definition – See MS Penal Code)
How about some input from TFL members on how we can tear down the blocks ATF is using to build their argument?
1. M855 is armor-piercing as defined under (i) of the statute (already discussed here; but relies primarily on the "two core" interpretation)
2. Primarily intended must focus on the “likely use” of that item in the general community, not the subjective intent of the designer or user (this is in direct contradiction to the stance ATF takes on the SIG brace which says the intent of the user changes the design intent of the weapon)
3. When the only readily available handgun for a projectile is objectively sporting, then it can be reasonably inferred the primary intent is also sporting.
4. It is not possible to conclude that revolvers, semi-auto handguns or two-round derringers are primarily intended for use in sporting purposes (surely we can come up with many good arguments against this)
5. ATF has recognized that SS109 is suitable for target shooting (a sport the ATF also recognizes as a “suitable sporting purposes”) in 1986. (Don't want to attack this; but draw attention to the fact)
6. AR handguns and semi-auto handguns accepting SS109 were not commercially available in 1986; but are now available (Gwinn Armpistol predated SS109 by almost 20 years – any other examples of pre-1986 semi-auto .223 handguns?)
7. Withdrawing the exemption on SS109 will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition (under Federal law only, will place individuals under criminal possession under state law that relies on Federal definition – See MS Penal Code)
How about some input from TFL members on how we can tear down the blocks ATF is using to build their argument?
Very good points Bart.
We can also contact our representatives to pressure the BATFE to reverse this ruling.
When contacting your congressional representative, suggest that this is not only a gun issue but an issue of a bureaucratic agency overstepping the intent of a law passed by congress; which in turn is circumventing the legislative process and basically "making up laws" as they go.
This issue, like the 7N6 ban should be dealt with by our elected representatives, NOT by faceless bureaucrats that have not been elected by the American public.
We can also contact our representatives to pressure the BATFE to reverse this ruling.
When contacting your congressional representative, suggest that this is not only a gun issue but an issue of a bureaucratic agency overstepping the intent of a law passed by congress; which in turn is circumventing the legislative process and basically "making up laws" as they go.
This issue, like the 7N6 ban should be dealt with by our elected representatives, NOT by faceless bureaucrats that have not been elected by the American public.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I should also note that VCDL has accused the BATF of making it more difficult to comment on this and excluding comments. Please note that if you do not include all the information requested (name, address, etc.) and formatted in the way ATF requested (see the last page of the memo), ATF may disregard the comments you make.
Mosin-Marauder
New member
I worry if this is going to be like the 7N6 fiasco where they just ignored any comments and petitions. Surely this has raised more concern and unrest due to the sheer amount of people that shoot this round and even don't shoot this round, don't you think?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
ATF appears to be taking the position that they have already solicited all the commentary they need on what rounds should receive a sporting purposes exemption and are trying to sidestep the issue by framing this as commentary on how to best implement the proposed framework.
Clearly, by declaring that they will remove a 30 year old exemption for M855, they are going to draw a lot more heat than 7n6. ATF as much as says in their memo that they are going to get sued over this. They may even be trying to use M855 as leverage - threaten to withdraw the exemption to get people riled up, "give in" by allowing a continued exemption for M855; but still keep a proposed framework which establishes some disturbing regulatory concepts (such as "Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes.")
Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.
Clearly, by declaring that they will remove a 30 year old exemption for M855, they are going to draw a lot more heat than 7n6. ATF as much as says in their memo that they are going to get sued over this. They may even be trying to use M855 as leverage - threaten to withdraw the exemption to get people riled up, "give in" by allowing a continued exemption for M855; but still keep a proposed framework which establishes some disturbing regulatory concepts (such as "Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes.")
Ultimately, Congress has to define "sporting purposes" because as it is now, that definition is left solely to the Attorney General, who has delegated it to the Director of ATF. That opens the process to way too much abuse as you can see.
maestro pistolero
New member
If the question is "What is the primary and actual type of use for this round in civilian hands", the answer is sporting at a probable rate of very close to 100 percent.
I am aware of no criminal uses of this round, and certainly there can be none that would not have readily been accomplished with nearly any other round.
it is astonishing that the BATF believes it has the luxury of resources to devote to this foolishness, while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity.
Once again the government directs firearms enforcement in a manner that primarily targets only the law abiding. Measures like this are the antitheses of narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.
It instead targets everyone on the slim chance that someone might misuse this ammunition.
I am aware of no criminal uses of this round, and certainly there can be none that would not have readily been accomplished with nearly any other round.
it is astonishing that the BATF believes it has the luxury of resources to devote to this foolishness, while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity.
Once again the government directs firearms enforcement in a manner that primarily targets only the law abiding. Measures like this are the antitheses of narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.
It instead targets everyone on the slim chance that someone might misuse this ammunition.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, translated from idiot aparatchiki, the ATF's reasoning goes like this:
1. "Suitable sporting purpose" only means those firearms sports that existed and were popular in the United States in 1968 to include skeet, trap, hunting and competitive target shooting.
2. "Primarily intended" is an objective test based on the likely use of a product rather than the designer's intent or the intent of a single criminal user.
3. Semi-automatic handguns, revolvers and two-shot derringers have no sporting purpose.
4. You can infer the primary intent of a cartridge by what firearm it can be used in - if even one of those firearms is a semi-automatic handguns, revolver, or two-shot derringer, then the primary intent is clearly non-sporting.
When you start reading the argument on a point-by-point base, the amount of stupidity is almost overwhelming. There is so much wrong with it that it is like eating an elephant to address every backward, confused idea in the memo.
1. "Suitable sporting purpose" only means those firearms sports that existed and were popular in the United States in 1968 to include skeet, trap, hunting and competitive target shooting.
2. "Primarily intended" is an objective test based on the likely use of a product rather than the designer's intent or the intent of a single criminal user.
3. Semi-automatic handguns, revolvers and two-shot derringers have no sporting purpose.
4. You can infer the primary intent of a cartridge by what firearm it can be used in - if even one of those firearms is a semi-automatic handguns, revolver, or two-shot derringer, then the primary intent is clearly non-sporting.
When you start reading the argument on a point-by-point base, the amount of stupidity is almost overwhelming. There is so much wrong with it that it is like eating an elephant to address every backward, confused idea in the memo.
while known criminal uses of firearms in inner city drug and gang activity continues with near impunity.
While I HATE to defend the ATF in any way, I must point out that this is generally outside their jurisdiction.
They love to split hairs, and so, in fairness, we must do the same. Criminal possession by inner city drug and gangs might be within their purview, (trafficking illegal sales, etc.), but the actual criminal use of firearms (murder, assault, ) are purely local matters.
Also, I must have missed the memo, could someone catch me up on what the "7N6 fiasco" is/was? (PM is fine)
Mosin-Marauder
New member
Falsely banning 7N6 for the same reason as this. Except, 7N6 doesn't even have a penetrator core, and XM855 does, both are false rounds to ban. It's like banning 7.62x54R light ball because it has a steel core. Chamber a handgun in a round that is "armor piercing" even if it's not, and the ATF gets all Ban Crazy.
Mild Steel does not = AP.
It's a substitution for Lead in combloc countries.
Mild Steel does not = AP.
It's a substitution for Lead in combloc countries.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Also, I must have missed the memo, could someone catch me up on what the "7N6 fiasco" is/was? (PM is fine)
7n6 was surplused Russian ammo in 5.45x39. It had a substantial steel component (compared to M855) with some lead filler and jacket material. However, it was dirt cheap for a long time. Then someone decided to offer a pistol in 5.45 and ATF cut off importation of the ammo based on 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17).
However, while it had a substantially larger steel core than M855, it also did not have a core that was "entirely" made of steel.
One of the common themes with this and other ATF decisions, is that there are many terms in statute that Congress did not define, and as a result, ATF is free to apply a "reasonable" interpretation to those terms. Sadly, the practical result has been that ATF has defined a "core" as being some subset of the actual projectile so that any amount of prohibited metal may or may not constitute a "core" as ATF sees it.
Whereas, most of us, being normal English-speaking types, when we see the words "a core ENTIRELY constructed of..." assume that it means that everything but the jacket must be constructed of the prohibited material.
Ultimately, ATF has a huge stick to beat us with re: sporting purposes, and under this Administration, they will beat us with that stick. Congress can take action to remedy this; but unless they can get the President to sign off on it or muster enough votes to override a veto (and either one of those options probably involves making compromises that make Sophie's choice look mild), then nothing can happen until after 2016 (and even then, we need to hold the House, Senate and put someone in the Presidency who is actually sympathetic to us).
The other option is a court fight, which will take millions of dollars and years if it goes well.
Hello,
As some of you may have seen in the recent week, the ATF proposed a ban on the sale and manufacture of XM855 surplus ammunition Claiming ,falsely, that this is an Armor piercing round for handguns.
Over at another forum I am a member of, a fellow member created an easy way of contacting the ATF on this issue. It provides Three different templates of letters and you only have to sign your name and state of residence at the bottom.
Here is the link to the website.
http://www.savem855.com/Default.aspx
A petition has also been started on this, and at 100,000 signatures it will be addressed by the Obama administration. Here is the link to it.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ition/XrvVh1cj
There are also a few videos on YouTube explaining just what is going on here, I suggest those be watched if you need information.
You can also read these articles written about this issue.
NRA-ILA
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...mon-ar-15-ammo
TTAG
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...56-ammunition/
And the ATF's Original Letter about this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...bqRXlWQKprJoUw
I urge you to share this information and contact your state regarding your opinion on this issue.
Thank you.
-Mo.
This post was moved, with permission, from a now closed thread. I felt it worthwhile to have the info about the links here.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.