BATFE proposes to ban SS109 & M855 ammunition for civilian sales.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun..."

Doesn't this definition already exclude M855 from classification as AP? Specifically, the projectile IS .22 caliber, not larger than. A thing cannot logically be larger than itself. Second, M855 was designed and intended for use in military rifles, not handguns.
 
From what I've read, there are also some legal questions concerning the way in which the public is or isn't being notified about the comment period. Probably enough questions to justify the filing of lawsuits which some gun rights organizations are already preparing.
 
Would someone please explain the info below from the NRA-ILA. Are they going after ALL 223/5.56 ammo over 40gr. In a centerfire cartridge?

"Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes."
 
You know, congress can force the ATF to recognize target shooting and practice as a "sporting purpose." So long as we suffer that moronic statute, we might as well expand that definition as we are able. Places to maneuver our position. Hopefully someone is working the courts this way as well (would love to see the ATF argue hunting is "sport," but not non-competitive practice/target shooting, esp. with O's environmentalist ties; force them to legalize all plinking ammo or ban 12ga along with everything else)

TCB
 
It doesn't look like there's any serious resistance to this push, as far as public opinion outside of the modern sporting rifle community goes.
It's not in the news anywhere, in the mainstream. Not even in alt-media.
One week later, it's become yesterday's topic and more of a 'ok, let's stock up now' deal.
The NRA isn't pounding the drums. There's no full-court press. This isn't shaping up to be an event where the people and their elected representatives stand up and resolutely say "NO" to the new proposed law.

The ATF will be emboldened to go even further now. Rather than reconsidering their stance, they will proceed with a full-court press on reinterpreting the LEOPA to restrict all kinds of new ammunition that they don't think has a sporting purpose.

To them, sporting means deer hunting with buckshot and maybe skeet shooting, so since Elmer F. didn't speak up now, who will be left to speak for him when they come for his .243 Winchester? His .300 Win Magnum?
 
Write to your Senator and House member. They both have a find your representative feature.

All ready done to include responding to the comment period and petition. Have not heard back from them yet nor have heard much from the NRA on this matter. I have sent a message to the NRA-ILA branch seeking updates.
 
All ready done to include responding to the comment period and petition. Have not heard back from them yet nor have heard much from the NRA on this matter. I have sent a message to the NRA-ILA branch seeking updates.
Doubt the NRA cares much. Did they care when the ATF banned Barnes Solids? They need "ammo" for future fundraising drives. I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA wasn't secretly pushing for the ATF to ban M855, 7N6 etc. After all, the NRA was instrumental in crafting the ban in the first place.

I'm curious to see if my Rep responds to my email.

In the end a ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of handgun ammunition made from several specific, harder metals, was passed with the NRA’s blessing, and signed into law by President Reagan. The NRA assured its members that their definition had so watered-down the law that it would make no difference to regular gun owners, but Dad warned that the language adopted left the door open for future expansion of the ban, potentially covering military surplus and certain types of hunting and target ammo.
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/in...r-bullets&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
 
The NRA has been active on this since 2012 at least and NRA-ILA responded on a Friday night within hours of the ATF notice. So I'm not sure where the criticism of NRA is coming from or how that helps this Activism thread.
 
Here's what I sent though the NRA-ILA letter webpage -https://www.nraila.org/take-action/write-your-lawmakers/stop-batfe/

Stop the BATFE from classifying M855 ball ammunition as armor piercing and banning the sale of this ball ammunition to the public.

M855 5.56 ammunition is classified as ball type ammunition by the DoD while the DoD's 5.56 armor piercing ammunition is the M995. The BATFE has proposed to classify M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing" citing the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408) (“LEOPA”) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The M855 ball round does not meet the GCA or LEOPA definitions of "armor piercing" ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) armor piercing ammunition is defined as -
"(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) 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; or
(ii) 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. "

M855's bullet is a composite jacketed lead core projectile with a mild steel tip and not "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" nor is it "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" as required by definition in18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) .

DoD specifically classifies M855 as ball ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) does not define a composite projectile as armor piercing, BATFE does not have legislative authority to redefine ball ammunition as armor piercing counter to the law, as such BATFE does not have authority to declare M855 as armor piercing.

Additionally, BATFE has exempted many types of ammunition that met the 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) definition as armor piercing because of common sporting purposes use. M855 is commonly used in sporting purposes such as civilian recreational shooting, competition and hunting. Due to the increase in 5.56 rifle recreational shooting, competition and hunting in recent years M855 has actually shown an increased sporting purpose use.

Banning sale of M855 ammunition to the public will impose a burden on the public as the price of 5.56 ammunition is kept low due to competition with COCO ammunition plants and NATO partner ammunition manufacturers selling non milspec ammunition or overruns to the public and law enforcement agencies as well as U.S. Forrest Service, USDA, Park Service, ... who all depend upon inexpensive ammunition for practice, competition, hunting, wildlife management, pest wildlife eradication and endless other legitimate uses of this ammunition. The buying public will see an increase in the price of ammunition if this ban occurs as will the agencies using the ammunition supported by taxpayers. The government will incur an increased financial burden as the ammunition previously purchased by the public will have to be demilled or destroyed instead of recovering costs through public sales. Prices to agencies will increase due to the incurred expense at the GOCOs as well negatively impacting state and local governments, and their taxpayers, that use the ammunition.

Through this proposed ban, ATF disproportionately focuses on how criminals might use sporting ammunition in a handgun. Classifying criminals as a “consumer group” in their explanation on this topic is also disturbing and insulting to the millions of sportsmen using this ammunition, as it further implies that the industry purposely sells firearms and ammunition to this element. Sportsmen are the consumer group, not criminals as there is no evidence that can be provided that M855 ball ammunition fired from a handgun has been used to harm any law enforcement officer.

There is no defensible reason that BATFE moves to ban the sale of M855 ball ammunition by calling it armor piercing.
 
Last edited:
If everyone interested in this topic will use the NRA-ILA webpage we'll avoid all the questions about whether the BATFE is accepting comments or not and reach all our elected officials with one effort.

That's as easy as it gets, folks.
 
Good point.

This is where it goes (well, for me anyway) and my assumption was that the "BATFE" would be the comment.
President
President Barack Obama (D-)
Misc.
BATFE
Vice President
Vice President Joseph Biden (D-)
U.S. Senate
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
U.S. House of Representatives
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN)

Let's assume that we need to send a copy through one of the three comment streams to the to the BATFE like [email protected].
 
Points made by the NRA -

M855 ammunition should not even be categorized as "armor piercing" in the first place, given that lead is the primary material beneath its copper jacket.

BATFE's framework does not clarify the "sporting purposes" exemption; it simply interprets it into irrelevance.

The framework overturns nearly 30 years of settled law and the good faith expectations of gun owners and industry members.

The framework is totally at odds with the intent of the law to ensure that restrictions on armor piercing handgun ammunition do not unduly restrict common rifle ammunition, most of which is capable of penetrating police body armor when used in a rifle as intended.

BATFE incorrectly insists that it is required to establish an "objective" standard based on handgun design, yet it fails even to do that with the very broad "discretion" it retains to deny the exemption to projectiles that meet its "objective" test.

The framework will suppress the development of non-lead rifle projectiles that offer increased performance for hunters, decreased lead exposure, and solutions for hunters in states that restrict the use of lead in hunting.

The framework will likewise deter handgun development, as new designs could trigger bans.

Coupled with increasing attempts to ban lead projectiles, the framework could drastically reduce the availability of lawful ammunition for sporting and other legitimate purposes.

M855 ammunition in AR pistols is not a common threat faced by law enforcement officers.
 
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.
 
Received the response below from my Congressman's office a few days ago.

Thank for you contacting me with regard to ammunition shortage. It is good to hear from you.

The Obama administration's persistent threats of expanded gun control regulations have created a nationwide increase in demand for ammunition. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia recently told his constituents, "What's really causing the shortage is panic buying by people who fear restrictions on ammunition and weapon purchases." Unfortunately the fear of having our 2nd Amendment right infringed upon has become all too real and resulted in law-abiding gun owners around the country stockpiling ammunition.

I believe that gun control legislation in any form violates both the letter and the spirit of the United States Constitution. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently supported legislation that strengthened an individual's right to bear arms. As long as I represent you in Congress, I will vigorously defend the Second Amendment.

Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to receive further information on issues of importance to you, please log on to my website at http://mike-rogers.house.gov. I hope to hear from you again soon.
 
Looks like Goodlatte's letter finally got this on Drudge-dar, so hopefully we'll finally get some serious publicity on this in time for the rule change.

**it is almost as though the media were waiting for net neutrality to come to its conclusion before picking up this latest outrage...
 
Last edited:
Does ANYbody on this board actually believe that ANYthing submitted by the
public against this move will stop ANYthing associated w/ this ammunition ban ?

Really ?

Just the beginning folks.....
 
Yes, as pointed out previously the once fired brass fiasco was stopped. It took legislators sending letters, but that's often how you get an agency recalibrated on an issue.

Rolling on our backs and peeing ourselves will insure we get what we have earned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top