rogerjames
member
A good, but unfortunate explanation I read on another forum...
Seems that "intended use" is not really relevant to the verbiage and "armor piercing" is defined by the metal content of the projectile and NOT the "performance" of the projectile. The important factors are the metal content of the bullet and whether it "may be used" in a pistol.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=2082838
In the mean time, can't hurt to sign here...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-batfe-banning-xm855-ammunition/XrvVh1cj
In addition to writing BATFE and our congressional representatives. We should not be lazy and apathetic about this.
Seems that "intended use" is not really relevant to the verbiage and "armor piercing" is defined by the metal content of the projectile and NOT the "performance" of the projectile. The important factors are the metal content of the bullet and whether it "may be used" in a pistol.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=2082838
"When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun. Instead, the definition has two alternatives: the first focuses on the composition of the ammunition, and whether it “may be used” in a handgun; the second focuses on size, jacket weight, and the design and intention for the ammunition. Specifically, the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides:
(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.
Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a)(17)
Although the design and intention for the ammunition is relevant to the second alternative definition, the first alternative contains no such limitation. In fact, during the final vote on LEOPA, Congress specifically rejected an amendment that would have limited the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “intended” to be used in a handgun, thereby exempting “standard rifle ammunition.”1 As a result, rather than limiting the definition to the manufacturer’s “design” or “intent,” the final bill passed by Congress clearly expanded the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include any ammunition containing the specified metal content “which may be used in a handgun.” This definition has remained unchanged since enactment of LEOPA in 1986.
In adopting a definition of armor piercing ammunition that included ammunition that “may” be used in a handgun, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i), Congress expressly sought to protect law enforcement officers from the effects of a projectile that, although originally intended for a rifle, could be fired from a handgun. Accordingly, under the first of the two alternative definitions enacted into law, all projectiles meeting the metal content criteria that “may be used in a handgun” are defined as “armor piercing ammunition” under the statute."
I have no doubt this is only the beginning of the BATFE administrative ammo bans.
In the mean time, can't hurt to sign here...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-batfe-banning-xm855-ammunition/XrvVh1cj
In addition to writing BATFE and our congressional representatives. We should not be lazy and apathetic about this.
Last edited: