Jump to content

ATF intends to reclassify and ban M855 ammunition


StevieJ309

Recommended Posts

Just saw this on another forum:

 

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

 

It basically states that the ATF has continued to let M855 stay on the market because it was a rifle round and the only handguns that fired it were single shot break actions like the Thompson Contender. With the rise of AR pistols, M855 now readily meets the definition of armor piercing handgun ammunition, since it can be loaded into a magazine and fired from a handgun. Therefore, they are looking to restrict its sale. The link I provided above outlines the whole proposal.

 

Listed at the end are ways in which you can contact the ATF and voice your concerns on the matter. Make no mistake that this is a tactic they will take advantage of more and more in the future to further erode our already dwindling rights.

 

ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov - follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Fax: 202-648-9741

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

 

For further information contact: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington DC 20226; Telephone - 202-648-7070

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing surprises me but could you include where you found this?

 

Also what bothers me is the ATF never seems to include basic info like date of issue, from/to, scope or summary upfront and a name of the person issuing the letter. All this leads to more problems trying to get any information on any issue out of the ATF.

 

Before I try to lend my voice to this issue, I need to verify this is current and basic framework of the letter. ie. any 556/223 is reduced significantly by a shorter barrel which is not mentioned in the letter ever.

 

ATF is the bane of my existence. Dan

Its a legit letter unfortunately...

 

Its on BATFE's website and is on the NRA's website

 

From the letter (at the end)

Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

 ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

 Fax: (202) 648-9741.

 Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, it is part of a larger two pronged attack:

 

1. The EPA doesn't want you shooting lead bullets.

 

2. The ATF is going to make the claim that any bullet made from something other than just gilding metal and/or lead is an armor piercing projectile.

 

It doesn't leave much for projectiles to shoot then, does it?

 

Elite Ammunition got their pro-jos seized by the ATF:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/08/robert-farago/atf-raid-elite-ammunition-confiscate-armor-piercing-brass-bullets/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to stock up on M855.

 

Wonder if 2A rights extend to ammo and if this could be seen a as violation of 2a rights.

Nope there is absolutely no rights violation here, and anyone else that is wondering ought think through the argument that they are going to present to see if its emotional or actually based on something contained in the existing statute and judicature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Time to stock up on M855.

 

Wonder if 2A rights extend to ammo and if this could be seen a as violation of 2a rights.

Nope there is absolutely no rights violation here, and anyone else that is wondering ought think through the argument that they are going to present to see if its emotional or actually based on something contained in the existing statute and judicature.

 

Disagree. Most rifle ammo will penetrate up to a Class 3 vest. Regardless of a steel tipped bullets or not. The BATFE is making this ruling based upon the fact that AR-15 pistols exist and can be used to fire these type of rounds. The BATFE could just as easily rule that all rifle ammunition is designed to penetrate the vests most commonly worn by law enforcement tomorrow and ban their manufacture and even possession.

 

When the armor piercing bullet thing came up years ago, M855 ammo was excluded because pistols that could use it were not in common use. Now that they are in common use(AR pistols), the BATFE wants to change the rules on us.

 

Here is what Senator Moniyhan said about the 1986 bill to ban armor piercing bullets at the time:

 

Let me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the

availability of standard rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. Time and

again Congressman Biaggi and I have stressed that only bullets capable of penetrating

body armor and designed to be fired from a handgun

would be banned; rifle ammunition would not be covered.

 

 

Make no mistake about this. The BAFTE wants to ban ammunition in the most popular rifle platform out there. That being the AR-15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. Most rifle ammo will penetrate up to a Class 3 vest. Regardless of a steel tipped bullets or not. The BATFE is making this ruling based upon the fact that AR-15 pistols exist and can be used to fire these type of rounds. The BATFE could just as easily rule that all rifle ammunition is designed to penetrate the vests most commonly worn by law enforcement tomorrow and ban their manufacture and even possession.

 

When the armor piercing bullet thing came up years ago, M855 ammo was excluded because pistols that could use it were not in common use. Now that they are in common use(AR pistols), the BATFE wants to change the rules on us

 

BATFE does have the authority to regulate ammunition, and therefore, by definition if they want to change the rules with respect to the classification of a type of ammo, it may very well be subject to challenge based upon the facts and circumstances related to the ammo, but not as a violation of 2A related rights. Its probably more effective to challenge an issue of this type based upon the ammo rather than to try a constitutional challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Disagree. Most rifle ammo will penetrate up to a Class 3 vest. Regardless of a steel tipped bullets or not. The BATFE is making this ruling based upon the fact that AR-15 pistols exist and can be used to fire these type of rounds. The BATFE could just as easily rule that all rifle ammunition is designed to penetrate the vests most commonly worn by law enforcement tomorrow and ban their manufacture and even possession.

When the armor piercing bullet thing came up years ago, M855 ammo was excluded because pistols that could use it were not in common use. Now that they are in common use(AR pistols), the BATFE wants to change the rules on us

 

BATFE does have the authority to regulate ammunition, and therefore, by definition if they want to change the rules with respect to the classification of a type of ammo, it may very well be subject to challenge based upon the facts and circumstances related to the ammo, but not as a violation of 2A related rights. Its probably more effective to challenge an issue of this type based upon the ammo rather than to try a constitutional challenge.

 

You wouldn't consider the banning of all rifle ammunition, capable of penetrating a bullet proof vest as a Second Amendment issue? Because based on their current reasoning, there is nothing to stop the BATFE from doing exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't consider the banning of all rifle ammunition, capable of penetrating a bullet proof vest as a Second Amendment issue? Because based on their current reasoning, there is nothing to stop the BATFE from doing exactly that.

 

The jump from the ban of a specific type of ammunition to the banning of "all types of rifle ammunition" is extreme to say the least. The attempt to ban "all" is a completely different topic than the ban of one type for a long existing and specific reason. The use of the 2A argument for a complete ban is well grounded in existing authority as we have seen from the attempt to ban all handguns in Heller. However, the right of the government to regulate the possession and use of firearms...as distinct from an absolute ban has been well established for 75 years from Miller. The use of the 2A argument with respect to the ban of a specific type of ammo as AP is destined to fall flat on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic the BATFE is using is that this particular round will penetrate a bullet proof vest when fired from a handgun. Guess what, almost every rifle caliber has a handgun that can fire it. And nearly everyone of those rifle calibers can penetrate at vest up to Class 3.

 

You start down this slope, and the wholesale banning of any caliber capable of penetrating a vest is not far behind.

 

The BATFE is not our friend Fudd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Disagree. Most rifle ammo will penetrate up to a Class 3 vest. Regardless of a steel tipped bullets or not. The BATFE is making this ruling based upon the fact that AR-15 pistols exist and can be used to fire these type of rounds. The BATFE could just as easily rule that all rifle ammunition is designed to penetrate the vests most commonly worn by law enforcement tomorrow and ban their manufacture and even possession.

 

When the armor piercing bullet thing came up years ago, M855 ammo was excluded because pistols that could use it were not in common use. Now that they are in common use(AR pistols), the BATFE wants to change the rules on us.

 

Actually I think there's quite a few handgun rounds now certainly the 5.7 and I suspect a flavor or two of .17

Walking into a military base with a 20 round FiveSeven pistol may certainly be crazy but not a stupid weapon choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic the BATFE is using is that this particular round will penetrate a bullet proof vest when fired from a handgun. Guess what, almost every rifle caliber has a handgun that can fire it. And nearly everyone of those rifle calibers can penetrate at vest up to Class 3.

 

You start down this slope, and the wholesale banning of any caliber capable of penetrating a vest is not far behind.

 

The BATFE is not our friend Fudd.

I most certainly agree that BATFE isn't our friend....however, these rules have been out for a very long time, and we haven't seen the "slippery slope" theory applied. As I said, arguing on the specific merits is the prudent approach here, not picking up the proverbial 2A kitchen sink and throwing it after the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You wouldn't consider the banning of all rifle ammunition, capable of penetrating a bullet proof vest as a Second Amendment issue? Because based on their current reasoning, there is nothing to stop the BATFE from doing exactly that.

 

The jump from the ban of a specific type of ammunition to the banning of "all types of rifle ammunition" is extreme to say the least. The attempt to ban "all" is a completely different topic than the ban of one type for a long existing and specific reason. The use of the 2A argument for a complete ban is well grounded in existing authority as we have seen from the attempt to ban all handguns in Heller. However, the right of the government to regulate the possession and use of firearms...as distinct from an absolute ban has been well established for 75 years from Miller. The use of the 2A argument with respect to the ban of a specific type of ammo as AP is destined to fall flat on its face.

 

Individual restrictions one after another on ammunition can lead to really expensive paperweights. Yes, this is one type of ammunition but these things tend to add up. If it becomes anything composed whole or in part of something other than lead is "AP" and thus banned, what happens when lead becomes a no-no due to the enviromental risk topic? Guns are okay, but the ammo gets restricted into oblivion there isn't a 2A argument to be had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also have brand new manufacture (not pulled) ss109 projectiles. I bought 5,000 during the panic. https://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=7236&dir=278|281|1079|1085|1726

 

In case anyone is looking, Wideners has 1,200 round cases. https://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9019

Perhaps not at the time you posted , but they are out of stock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole sporting purpose premise of most of the ATF regulations is based on a false premise from the start. The suitability for sporting purposes is irrelevant in light of the infringement on a fundamental right.

 

We should stop arguing at suitability for sporting purposes and get right down to the bare bones, it's a right whether it falls under the arbitrary definition of armor piercing or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...