Shooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 145 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,886 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
I sent my comments to ATF and my Senators.


CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
From the link...

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.
Good Lord. .223 ammo will go from $23 to $50 per 100 now. Couldn't this apply to 22lr ammo to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
THIS WILL NOT IMPACT .22 RIMFIRE.

You need to read the back ground in the actual proposed rule.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...g_purposes.pdf

.22 rimfire ammunition is specifically exempted.

The NPRM establishes the history of why M855 was exempted in the first place.

The short story is that the intent of the law in 1986 was to ban the use of armor piercing ammunition in handguns as a means to reduce the threat posed to police officers.

As it was implemented the congressional intent was defined to exempt rounds primarily intended for use in rifles, that could be used in single shot, or two round break open pistols. That's what kept the law from prohibiting any round ever chambered in a T/C Contender, or any other silhouette pistol.

.22 rimfire was also specifically exempted.

M855 (along with the .30-06 AP rounds) were exempted from this law on the basis that they were not intended primarily for use in handguns, and were not used in revolvers or semi-auto handguns.

WHAT HAS CHANGED is the growth in popularity of AR-15 type pistols. What we now have are large numbers of AR-15 semi-auto pistols capable of firing M855 ammo that is considered to be armor piercing.

ATF is now saying since M855 is commonly used in handguns, it is now no longer eligible for the exemption.

That fact is not disputable, but the intent of congress was still to prevent a threat to police officers by banning ammunition used in handguns that are used by criminals. They drew the line at revolvers nd semi-autos. The assumption ATF is making is that since AR-15 pistols are common, that they are semi-auto, and they fire M855 ammo, they pose a significant threat to police officers and M855 must now be banned.

However, here's where the logic starts to come apart with regard to the congressional intent:

1. AR-15 pistols are horrendously impractical for criminal use as they are generally large in size, heavy in weight relative to other handguns, and they are one of the most difficult pistols around to conceal. Given the size, weight and lack of conceal ability, they are, like a TC Contender, an XP-100 or a similar silhouette pistol, very unlikely to be a weapon of choice by criminals, even though they are semi-automatic.

2. It follows then that if criminals are not carrying them, then the AR-15 pistols do not pose a threat to police officers, and do not meet the intent of Congress in banning armor piercing ammo that can be used in a pistol.

3. The statistics on how many AR-15 pistols have been encountered in officer involved shoots is key to the ATF argument that AR-15 pistols, and in turn M855 ammunition poses a threat to police officers in the manner intended by Congress. I am not aware of AR-15 pistols being used in a significant percentage of crimes. I suspect it's well under 1%, like it is for "assault rifles".

4. It could also be argued to some extent that the body armor worn by police has also improved, and that while Level IIIA armor was common in 1986, and that most officers were limited to the protection of Type IIIA covert body armor (worn under the shirt), police officers now commonly wear tactical body armor (worn outside the shirt) and that this allows, albeit with about 25 pounds of additional weight, the use of plate carriers and plates that offer Level III or Level IV protection - and provide protection against M855 ammunition, particularly at the low velocities that are common in AR-15 pistols.

------

In short, the ATF attorneys' narrow legal arguments are logically sound from a strictly legal reading, but they fail to hold up under scrutiny in terms of actual use, actual threat to officers, and basic common sense about what handguns criminals choose to carry (definitely not an AR-15 pistol as it is not concealable and offers no real advantage to a criminal).

----

A larger concern with this reasoning is that if they decide they can ban M855 because it is commonly fired in a pistol, then every other round potentially fired in an AR-15 pistol will come under increased scrutiny. This means ANY .223 round is suddenly on the verge of being banned - which given the sporting purposes of the .223 primarily in rifles, is a major miscarriage of congressional intent - and really bad news for us.

Similarly, any other round chambered in an AR-15 pistol is equally at risk if it can also penetrate body armor.

---

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, is take an ACTIVE role in expressing your objection to the results of this proposed rule in terms of the flaws in the logic being used and pointing out why these pistols and in turn M855 ammo does not post a significant threat to law enforcement officers:

You do this by submitting comments and you can do that in one of three ways:

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

 ATF website: [email protected]. 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.

----

The other thing you need to do is call your Senators and Representatives and express not only your concern about the immediate and the long term effects of this change in the exemption, but also EDUCATE your congressmen and women on why the ATF's logic and legal arguments are flawed, why neither AR-15 pistols nor M855 ammo poses a significant threat to police officers, and why the logic being used will have a significant impact over the long term on nearly all .223 sporting rounds once this logic is extended to nearly all .223 ammunition.


----

In order to get the ATF to back off in this, it will take a substantial number of responses that clearly articulate why this new interpretation of the law:

- is not consistent with the congressional intent of the law,
- why AR-15s do not pose a significant threat to police officers,
- at an absolute minimum require ATF to produce statistics on the frequency of use of AR-15 pistols in LEO shoots, before removing this exemption for M855 on the ground that it poses a threat to police officers, when there is nothing to indicate this the case, placing AR-15 pistols in the same category as silhouette pistols - pistols that could be used to fire AP ammo, but are just not practical for criminal use, due to their size, weight and the challenges they pose to the concealment needed for criminal activity.

If this occurs, OMB would be hard pressed to allow this to go forward after substantial public comment is received. It will also take pressure from the hill, supporting the logic that banning M855 is not what congress had in mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
The administration did this recently with 5.45X39 surplus, I would like to see some documented cases where this type of ammo has been used in a pistol during a crime. This is all about backdoor gun control and has nothing to do with officer safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
Funny that the largest user of M855 considers it Ball ammo. They have M955 that is Armor Piercing and that user is DoD. Even if fired from 7.5"-10.5" barrel pistols velocities are further reduced. Here comes another ammo shortage.


CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Our President, plus others like him, is a THREAT to our freedoms. He took an oath to defend & protect our Constitution plus our Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment.
His interpretation of the Constitution is considerably different that yours is, that much is obvious. What you consider a freedom, he considers a threat or in some cases simply a mistake that needs correcting. We shutter to think of what happens when the next couple of conservatives on the SCOTUS die or retire and get replaced by the likes of B.O. or Hillary. Since the Republicans have utterly failed to connect with the majority of people under 30 and with the vast majority of minorities, and most women under 40, the future on this front doesn't look bright to me. Not bright at all. Just callin it as I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gettinwet

·
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
Joined
·
10,914 Posts
Lets keep it on track fellas. It's starting to get a political taint to it.

RJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Today .223. Tomorrow, everything else.

We have all seen this little trick before, ie ... 'assault' vs 'sporting'. When 'definitions' get in the way, they just change the definition.

I, and most intelligent persons, would require proof of definition. They need to prove that their new armor piercing definition ... actually pierces armor in order to be 'defined' as such. If that does not work, they'll redefine "armor" as any material thicker than a piece of paper.

Wait for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
We'd all be better served if each and every one of you would spend the time and energy submitting comments to ATF. Complaining about our currently elected leadership, while heartfelt, won't help a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
We'd all be better served if each and every one of you would spend the time and energy submitting comments to ATF. Complaining about our currently elected leadership, while heartfelt, won't help a bit.
I could almost guaranty you that these posters have indeed already done what you have suggested. Forgive me if I took that the wrong way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,865 Posts
ATF is banning nothing "in response to Obama's" this or that. What ATF bans is a DIRECT result of what Obama tells them to regulate. Everything a law enforcement agency does is by order of the president. Let's not forget who hires these "at will" employees who run these agencies
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen Foraker

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,865 Posts
We'd all be better served if each and every one of you would spend the time and energy submitting comments to ATF. Complaining about our currently elected leadership, while heartfelt, won't help a bit.
Yes "complaining" (whining) will do nothing as will writing the ATF. This comes from the Director who, willingly or not does what he's told to do. However, we know he does so willingly because he shares the same views as the administration which is why he was hired in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,865 Posts
Lets keep it on track fellas. It's starting to get a political taint to it.

RJ
This entire thread has zero merit without politics. It is politics which creates this thread and politics which prevents the politics of the discussion itself
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
This is just another ploy of the people pulling the strings on the puppet to assert themselves over the sheep they claim to be protecting from their own stupidity. Just a new way to have reason to arrest people, fine them, imprison them, etc. (SMH)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
This entire thread has zero merit without politics. It is politics which creates this thread and politics which prevents the politics of the discussion itself
Ding Ding!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bird Dog II

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,920 Posts

·
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
Joined
·
10,914 Posts
Well what's the board's policy on politics?

While this "ban" is going to affect some shooters more than others, it's still good information for ALL shooters.

And I repeat what Model 52 said.

RJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: treecarcass
1 - 20 of 145 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top