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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom Servo said:
We need to steer away from partisan politics, especially on this issue. This whole situation is the result of a bill that was cosponsored by politicians of both parties, approved by a bipartisan vote, and eagerly signed by President Reagan.
Click to expand...
Except that the M855 doesn't fit the specific definition of "armor piercing" that appears in that law. Granted, if the law didn't exist that current BATFE couldn't bend, fold, twist and mutilate it in pursuit of a political objective, but IMHO it's unfair to blame the authors of something that was written decades ago because someone today decides to misuse it based on a phony interpretation..
 
it's unfair to blame the authors of something that was written decades ago because someone today decides to misuse it based on a phony interpretation.
Click to expand...
Good point, but we're in this spot because congress and the sitting President decided to delegate regulatory power to the ATF on this. If they didn't read between the lines, and they didn't anticipate certain consequences...yes, that is on them.

Are they distorting the definition of "armor piercing" and "sporting purposes" as written? Absolutely. But I fear the horse has left the barn.

So, what do we do about it? We can file a lawsuit. We haven't been too successful with those lately, and the process could be drawn out for years. The ammo in question will have disappeared from the market by then. More to the point, the politicians and bureaucrats who pushed for this will have a couple of years to take credit for helping "save lives." Memories are short, and they won't suffer any political consequences if it gets overturned.

Incidentally, Rep. William J. Hughes was one of the authors and backers of the bill. He described it as "balanced" and "workable," and claimed it wouldn't harm "sportsmen" at all. This is the same guy who snuck an amendment bearing his name into the FOPA that banned transfers of post-1986 machine guns to civilians.
 
Re posts 157 & 158, the "computer error" mentioned on 158 and the "publishing error" seen via the on 157 sounds more and more like BATFE double-talk, or to put it a bit more bluntly, bureaucratic lies, again courtesy of the BATFE. I say this at the risk, large or small, of doing the stalwarts at BATFE an injustice.
 
Re Tom Servo's post 160, I'm left curious re one thing, How come it seems that, via congressional and presidential stupidity, gun owners, the vast majority of whom are at least if not more law abiding than are elected types, seem always to get it in the neck, courtesy of the blundering legislative activities perpetrated by the above mentioned elected types. Seems to me that something is terribly out of whack re what appears to be the existing situation.

Also, re post 162, mention is made of the Hughes Amendment having been "snuck in." Re this, and it goes back a while, I wonder whether the members of both the House and the Senate were drunk, high on one of several controlled substances, or simply asleep at the switch, while this "sneaking in" was ongoing. As I recall, Arlen Specter was "busy" trying to impeach, a then federal judge in Florida.

I have no intent to pick an argument with Mr. Servo but it does seem, possibly I'm wrong here, that the law abiding citizen gun owner keeps getting the splintery end of that well known stick, from both Democrats and Republicans, not to mention faceless bureaucrats.
 
Last edited:
courtesy of the blundering legislative activities perpetrated by the above mentioned elected types.
Click to expand...
Actually, there's no blundering going on at all. They know exactly what they're doing.

I wonder whether the members of both the House and the Senate were drunk, high on one of several controlled substances, or simply asleep at the switch, while this "sneaking in" was ongoing.
Click to expand...
Most weren't there when the amendment was added. Rep. Rangel waiting until most of the House had gone home for the night, kept a few of his allies around, then added the Hughes amendment. By the time everyone realized what had happened, the clock was running out. We needed FOPA, and it was decided to let it go ahead with the amendment for two reasons: it did a great deal more good than harm for us, and there was an expectation that the machine gun ban could later be overturned.

If you do a search for "Hughes amendment," there should be several threads that go into more depth.
 
44 AMP said:
Well, here's a question, if the M855 IS classified as Handgun AP, and banned, what happens to all the ammo that is being bought?

The law prohibits possession. I don't see any wiggle room. From what I see, it would take a separate ruling/variance or law, to grandfather possession of the rounds we already have.

Anybody think we are going to get this? I don't hold out much hope, myself.

SO, possession of the loaded ammo becomes illegal, what do you do? Shoot it all off in a blaze of glory (and hope you fire it all before the gunpolice show up?
Click to expand...

I don't think the law prohibits possession. I think it is perfectly legal to possess AP ammo.

This is from the ATF link.

Emphasis mine.

ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is
legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law, withdrawing the
exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition.
However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing
ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition, and manufacturers and
importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition.8
Click to expand...

Link.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi..._primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
 
I wonder how long it'll take them to decide that the russian surplus import ammo is illegal? A lot of that stuff has a steel core. I'm sure someone will decide that 7.62x39 is pistol ammo because of someone stockless AK.
 
Most 7.62x39 has a bi-metal jacket and not a steel core, unless it is the surplus which isnt very popular because commercial non-corrosive costs the same..
 
Really? Could of swore the last time I looked it up the surplus stuff was still cheaper, but that was a while ago. Maybe I'm thinking of 7.62x54r.
 
I don't think the law prohibits possession. I think it is perfectly legal to possess AP ammo.
Click to expand...

That would depend on which state you live in. FEDERAL law doesn't prohibit possession, but some STATEs laws do, and they rely on the FED definition of what is, and isn't AP ammo.
 
There currently isn't a ban... but they are still "considering" one. If they weren't they wouldn't be having this comments period. The problem many people have is that it looks like they've already made up their minds and comment period is just sham.
 
NJgunowner wrote:
There currently isn't a ban... but they are still "considering" one. If they weren't they wouldn't be having this comments period. The problem many people have is that it looks like they've already made up their minds and comment period is just sham.

The comment period may well be a a sham, still I submit that calling their bluff could prove worth the small effort involved. Communicating with elected officials, U.S. Senators and Congress Persons is certainly worth the small effort. The rest is in the hands of individuals
 
HiBC said:
This might be some good news.It is a report that the BATF is calling it a mistake,and there is no ammo ban.

See what you think.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...stake-n1967168
Click to expand...

The ATF's "error" message does nothing except inform lazy reporters that the M855 exemption has not already been revoked.
Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, and conclude that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded. This is not the case.
Click to expand...

The AFT "proposal" to revoke the M855 exemption is still pending.
Some ammunition that was previously exempted as “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” specifically 5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges, will again be regulated as “armor piercing ammunition."
Click to expand...
 
The M855 is a military round designed to meet Geneva protocols and the militarys specifications. However, it is not the best round for self defense and its not the best round for hunting. Its good because it was cheap, but thats all that can be said about it.

The reason why they ban the M855 is so the military can have more of it for their wars on terrorism. That, of course, is my personal opinion and no Im not an expert on that issue. Just my 2 cents. However, it is a fact that the M855 is not the best round for any civilian or law enforcement purpose.
 
I rarely loaded M855 when deployed. M-193 was my favorite loading, the newer Mk318 wasn't prevalent yet when I was deployed the first two times.
 
I would only use M855 or M193 if they were the cheapest at Walmart and my purpose was plinking cans. The military doesnt use the best loadings, but what fits their standards and regs.

In any event banning the M855 because it can shoot through a wall or a vest is idiotic as many rifle rounds can shoot through these things. The ATF cant be this stupid. There has to be another reason.
 
Today federal regulatory agencies got a big boost from SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that federal agencies are not required to notify the public when interpretation of rules are changed. This could be a biggie for us.

Quote:
Regulators won a big victory at the Supreme Court on Monday as the justices endorsed expansive powers for changing the interpretation of federal rules.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public and collecting comment when changing the interpretations of rules, effectively removing steps from the process that can take months and sometimes years to complete.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...king-challenge
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top