ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re the latest from BATFE, the banning of M855 ammunition

1. M855 ammunition has been around for quite a while, nothing new here.
2. As I understand things, there was never any problem with M855 ammunition being "armor piercing", it was recognized as not being armor piercing. That was before Obama-Holder.
3. What has changed? The Obama-Holder axis is bound and determined to create as many problems as possible for gun owners and shooters as they can.
4. Therefore, the BATFE comes up with current foolishness, their proposed banning of M855 ammunition, simply another step toward the Holder-Obama Anti Gun Rights Nirvana, as I see it.
5. The Public Comment Period on this BATFE proposal runs till mid March, I don't recall the exact date. Seems like there is adequate time for "our side" to make their voices heard. By the way, comment opposing this latest anti gun stunt addressed to your U.S. Senators and Congress Person would likely be worth the effort too. Ladies and gentlemen, the rest is in your hands.
 
Alan, the link you tried got me to the site, which said page may have been moved.

The link Mosin-Marauder gives in post 64 worked when I tried it.
 
Out of curiosity from a legal stand point, do we, the gun community, have any real chance of preventing this from going through?

Like the SB15 brace letter, neither are effectively a law if I'm not mistaken.
 
The whitehouse.gov petitions are nothing more than bread and circuses. I have never heard about any sort of legislative change coming as a result of one.

Their purpose seems to be to distract people from real action. There's a link in the ATF proposal for submitting comments. That's where we need to be directing our efforts.
 
Does anyone know if they've changed their minds on this? Or any updates? Do you think they are likely to change their minds? With all the comments and everything?
 
I think there are significant legal aspects of this that ATF has not considered. Having said that, their proposed framework is a joke that is geared towards banning the maximum amount of ammo possible - so given they drafted it that broadly and they are willing to undo a 30 year precedent for no increase in officer safety, I'm feeling skeptical about ATF reconsidering this bad idea.
 
Is it likely for this ban to go through? Could congress not stop this? Surely to goodness someone up there has some plan of stopping it with all the negative comments on this and the petitions and stuff along with thousands of letters?
 
In his post #54 Bartholomew Roberts notes:

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.

That sounds right on to me, for the present situation just begs for abuse, which it gets, the abuse being ongoing.The question is, how do we get The Congress to do it's job, which is NOT passing it's legislative responsibilities to either a faceless bureaucrat or some political appointee.

In post #59 Bartholomew Roberts, all to correctly notes in part:

Ultimately, ATF has a huge stick to beat us with re: sporting purposes, and under this Administration, they will beat us with that stick.

By the way, is "sporting purposes" or "readily adaptable there to" anywhere in the law actually defined?
 
Last edited:
Latest NRA-ILA Alert:

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
Stop ATF's Ammo Ban: Urge Your U.S. Representative to Sign Congressional Letter to ATF on Proposed Ammo Ban


As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.

In an effort to thwart BATFE's attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers' opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.

According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for the B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.

NRA will also be submitting its own detailed comments to BATFE in opposition to the ban and is continuing to work with Members of Congress on legislation that will put a stop to this abuse.

In the meantime, gun owners and other affected members of the public must act now to help ensure BATFE does not get away with this attempt to deprive Americans of ammunition for their favorite rifle and to squeeze ammunition markets between converging bans on both lead and non-lead ammunition. BATFE is accepting comments on their proposed ban and will consider all comments received on or before March 16, 2015.

Please be sure to submit your respectful comments in opposition to the ban. For more detailed information on the proposed ban and how you can submit your comments to BATFE, please click this link.

Finally, please contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to sign Rep. Goodlatte's letter and to oppose BATFE's proposed "armor piercing" ammunition Framework. To contact them by phone, call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or CLICK HERE TO WRITE YOUR LAWMAKERS.



NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
FacebookTwitterYouTubeInstagram
© 2014 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.
 
alan said:
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.
Click to expand...

All too true. IRRC, the following are NOT considered to be "sporting purposes":

  • IPSC/USPSA
  • IDPA
  • Cowboy Action Shooting
  • Three Gun
  • Sporting Clays

There are probably a few others I missed. "Sporting purposes" seems to mean bullseye and benchrest shooting, and not a lot else. So, just as the .gov is doing its best to outlaw the most popular rifle platform in the U.S. (the AR-15), they are also ignoring several of the most popular shooting sports by not classifying them as sports.
 
According to this memo, ATF takes the position that "sporting purposes" means only those shooting sports that were widely popular in 1968 when the GCA was adopted. Ergo, shooting sports like IPSC are not and can never be "sporting purposes" no matter how popular they become (in ATF's view).
 
"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 . . . "
Click to expand...

I am uncomfortable with the whole sporting purposes limitation on Second Amendment activity. Should Congress act, and let's hope they do, merely refining the definition of sporting purposes would amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This clause must be struck.

Post Heller, the sporting purposes clause is an inapt limitation on activity and items associated with the fundamental right to self-defense. And although there are no court cases yet about the militia purpose of the amendment, I believe when it is finally addressed it will make mincemeat of the idea that a sporting purposes limitation on second amendment activity is befitting of a fundamental right to self-defense, or of the ability of the government to raise an effective militia.

Whether the government ever intends to or actually does raise a militia is irrelevant. It is the second amendment, not the government that secures that capability.

While it's true that Heller found a right to self-defense separate from the militia purpose announced in the first clause, the court also said that despite the degree of disconnect created by implements of modern warfare, the court could not allow that separation to change their interpretation of the right. That right must be interpreted according to the common understanding at the time of ratification. Militia members at the time of founding were expected to bring those firearms which they commonly possessed at home, which by the way, were equal to the most lethal bearable arms on the planet.

This is where the common use test would apply securing arms and by obvious implication, common ammunition. (This test cannot be applied in a vacuum however. To do so would be to eliminate any future developments wherein a new, bearable arm design would not yet be common.)
 
Last edited:
There's a thread about M855 in the General Discussion area, also. I don't like to double post, but I posted this in the other thread and I think it's applicable here, as well:

Just received an e-mail from the owner of Ares Armor citing a former BATFE agent, who provides a very insightful explanation of the impetus to ban the M855 ammo:

http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArti...F Agent weighs in on proposed M855 bancontent

The definition of Armor Piercing (AP) Ammunition is;

"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, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;"

This definition was agreed upon in the mid-'80s between the pro-gun and anti-gun forces as a middle-ground against the Senator Charles Schumer's catch phrase "cop-killer bullets". At first it was suggested that any bullet be banned which can penetrate a cop's vest. Law enforcement and many others were all for that definition until the NRA fought it because the unthinking hadn't realized that it would ban ALL rifle ammunition.

That was the only definition of AP ammunition until the Swedish M39B (9mm Luger) cartridge arrived on the surplus market in the late 80's. Being intended for use in the Carl Gustav M45 (Swedish K) submachinegun, it had a much thicker jacket than normal 9mm Luger cartridges and a higher velocity, which allows it to penetrate soft body armor.

So, since the problem didn't fit the solution (the M39B didn't qualify as AP), a new definition was added to the definition of AP ammo. It was added that AP ammo would include;

"A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile".

Notice that the definition didn't just say M39B, because that would leave the possibility to re-name the cartridge all allow it to come into the U.S.
Click to expand...

There's more -- a lot more.

He ends with what I picked up as soon as I read the definitions:

Here's the real tool that should be used to fight the ban. Point out to ATF that the bullet of M855 is not within the definition of Armor Piercing ammunition. Because the bullet is partially made of lead, it is NOT "constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;" Therefore the definition of AP does not apply.
Click to expand...
 
"Sporting purposes" is, and always was a "red herring". It is also today, a textbook example of the creeping incrementalism allowed to a bureaucracy through a poorly worded law.

The "sporting purposes" concept was created as justification to restrict imports. NOT as any basis for what citizens could possess. It was a trade protection measure, and supported by our major gunmakers at the time.

As long as the banned guns/ammo could be made in the US, there was no threat seen to our 2nd Amendment rights. At that time.

Today, that "sporting purposes" test is being applied (and applied unfairly) not just to what can be imported, but also to what can be made and even owned (in some cases) in the US.

And "sporting purposes" is defined in law. The definition is that the Sec Treas. has the authority to decide what sporting purposes are.

And, other than a few individuals, Congress doesn't give a rat's posterior about what rules the BATFE makes up, or how they affect us. HOWEVER, they do care a lot about their authority. I think the way to fight the ATF reclassifying M855 ammo is not to argue about what it does, or doesn't do from a pistol, or even what it is made of.

The argument that I think will be most effective in getting Congressional "help" is that the ATF is encroaching on Congressional authority.

This isn't a game of reality, it is a game of political power, and pride.

If we can get Congress to see that, in this case, it is a matter of the ATF imposing their opinion where it is actually Congress's role to decide, we stand a chance.

Get some of them convinced that Congress should not have given the Sec Tres (or his delegates) the sole authority to make these decisions. Make it a battle between govt branches & agencies (which it is, and should be seen as such), and not about the physical aspects of the ammo.

WE have leverage on Congress (not a lot, but some) through the election process. We don't have that against the Executive branch's minion agencies. We've seen, and continue to see how much public opinion matters, and to whom.
 
44 AMP said:
This isn't a game of reality, it is a game of political power, and pride.

If we can get Congress to see that, in this case, it is a matter of the ATF imposing their opinion where it is actually Congress's role to decide, we stand a chance.

Get some of them convinced that Congress should not have given the Sec Tres (or his delegates) the sole authority to make these decisions. Make it a battle between govt branches & agencies (which it is, and should be seen as such), and not about the physical aspects of the ammo.

WE have leverage on Congress (not a lot, but some) through the election process. We don't have that against the Executive branch's minion agencies. We've seen, and continue to see how much public opinion matters, and to whom.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, here is a case where we are truly not all equal. We all have a right to express our opinions to our congresscritters. In my case, I am blessed cursed with having two senators AND a representative who are avidly and adamently anti-gun. None of them have ever seen an anti-RKBA proposal they didn't support. So, for me to write to them and ask for their assistance in countering this proposed ruling would be a complete waste of my time and whatever ink, paper, postage, toner, and/or computer bandwidth I expend.

I can only pray that those who live in states with more honest congresscritters will make the effort to bring this to their attention and gain their support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top