Skip to comments.
Retribution? ATF Bans Common Rifle Ammo
Legalinsurrection.com ^
| 2-16-2015
| Andrew Branca
Posted on 02/16/2015 1:52:38 PM PST by servo1969
On Wednesday, February 11, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) suffered a humiliating federal court defeat that struck at the very core of its power. In response, it took the DOJ and the BATFE only two days to petulantly strike back at gun owners in the form of a late Friday order intended to ban a major type of ammunition for the single most commonly purchased rifle. (The BATFE’s “framework notice” released Friday evening is embedded at the bottom of this post.)
Last week’s federal court summary judgment against the government in Mance v. Holder struck down a key provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requiring all interstate handgun transfers to pass between FFLs in each state was struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny, as well as on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. (We covered that decision in detail right here at Legal Insurrection: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional, and the PDF of that court order can be found at that link.)
Never before had the Gun Control Act of 1968 been so grievously wounded, and the BATFE’s authority so profoundly shaken, and lawful American gun owners were appropriately ecstatic.
Like any wounded beast, of course, the BATFE faced an existential imperative to reassert their authority, and late Friday afternoon (in a move that’s long ago become standard operating procedure for the Obama administration) they did so with a vengeance.
A provision of the GCA was intended to ban the availability of armor piercing ammo in pistols–these bullets were characterized as “cop-killer” bullets, because of their potential ability to pierce a police officer’s “bullet proof” vest.
In order to get this provision passed into law, supporters of the GCA agreed to exclude rifle ammunition from this restrictions. The reason for this was simple–most any rifle round will zip through a typical LEO “bullet proof” vest like it wasn’t there. Applying this ban to rifle ammo would have effectively immediately banned almost all rifle ammo. (Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has excellent background on these negotiations and the concession of GCA backer Senator Patrick Moynihan to this exclusion of rifle ammunition from this restriction.)
When the GCA was actually signed into law, however, the exclusion of rifle ammunition from the “armor piercing” restriction was left rather ambiguous. Instead of imposing the “armor piercing” restriction on ammunition designed to be used in a handgun, it imposed the restriction on ammo that may be used in a handgun.
Handguns capable of firing rifle ammunition have, however, existed for many decades. A well-established model, the Thompson Contender, had been manufactured in a wide range of rifle calibers.
In recent years, a great many handguns have been built based on the underlying design of the very popular AR-15 rifle. These AR-based pistols fire the same ammunition as the AR rifles–most commonly 5.56 x 45 or .223 Remington (not quite exactly the same, but close enough for our purposes). (The featured image atop this page, sourced from the MDShooters gun forum, shows a whole and cross-sectioned 5.56 x 45 round.)
One of the most common types of 5.56×45 ammo is the type specified for military use, commonly referred to as M855 or SS109. It is this round that the BATFE is attempting to effectively ban, by suddenly claiming it as an armor piercing round that may be used in a handgun.
The fact that these rounds have been used in handguns for many decades, but only now, 47 years after the GCA was passed, has it occurred to the BATFE to ban them outright, seems to me far more likely to be attributable to their stinging defeat last week in Mance v. Holder than any sudden good faith realization that they’d somehow overlooked this “necessary” ban in the past.
The statutory fix to this over reach by the BATFE ought to be simple–simply replace the words “may be used” with “designed to be used” in the relevant section of the GCA. Naturally, Obama would never sign such a fix as a stand-alone bill, so it must necessarily be attached to something he finds otherwise compelling enough to sign.
Better, of course, would be to simply repeal the atrocity that is the GCA entirely. No other fundamental, personal, constitutionally protected civil right faces anything like the tremendous regulation–nay, infringement–as does the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
This action will, of course, energize gun owning Americans across the nation against the President’s party. I imagine more than a few Democrats whose districts are somewhat less liberal than San Francisco are turning to their staff and asking, “Obama did what now?”
As promised, here’s that ATF “framework letter” released late Friday evening:
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/255965776/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-EEo7zEz2XHleMNmhbZif&show_recommendations=true
-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ammo; ammunition; atf; banglist; batf; obama; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: faithhopecharity
...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... That "infringed" word is just so that-depends-on-the-definition-of -ish.
21
posted on
02/16/2015 2:47:29 PM PST
by
fwdude
(The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
To: servo1969
The real surprise is that this didn’t happen years ago. They did the same to 7.62x39 ammo when one company announced a mere _prototype_ “pistol” which fired it.
BATFE’s imperative is to enforce the letter of the law, shaving off every bit of ballistic freedom they can justify as not within what is strictly allowed.
22
posted on
02/16/2015 2:57:19 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
To: servo1969
-—characterized as cop-killer bullets-—
So when cops or the batf use 5.56 ammo do they call them “civilian-killer” bullets?
24
posted on
02/16/2015 3:35:51 PM PST
by
Faith65
(Isaiah 40:31)
To: servo1969
25
posted on
02/16/2015 3:57:18 PM PST
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
To: servo1969
This government forgets that when Prohibition was passed almost 100 years ago, all it really did was make criminals out millions of otherwise law abiding citizens. This administration is intentionally doing exactly that with this new law, blatantly, and with malice.
The Second Ammendment protects all the others.
26
posted on
02/16/2015 4:14:37 PM PST
by
NY Cajun
(I contributed to her pink slip this morning.)
To: servo1969
This too will get struck down. Its irritating and infuriating but it will not last.
27
posted on
02/16/2015 4:14:40 PM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: servo1969
28
posted on
02/16/2015 4:17:35 PM PST
by
snooter55
(People may doubt what you say, but they will always believe what you do)
To: servo1969
29
posted on
02/16/2015 4:26:57 PM PST
by
muir_redwoods
("He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." G.K .C)
To: servo1969
Are 30-30’s rifles still legal?
30
posted on
02/16/2015 4:27:18 PM PST
by
GraceG
(Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
To: LouAvul
Reagan wasn’t quite the same after hinkley.... i blame G H W B..........
31
posted on
02/16/2015 4:30:56 PM PST
by
GraceG
(Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
To: Georgia Girl 2
Why would this be struck down? AP ammo has been banned for a long time. Other bullets have been caught up in the ban for the same reasons. Like the ‘86 machine gun ban, it still stands because most legislators and judges see it as too militaristic for reasonable civilian use, with plenty of close enough alternatives still available. M855 is fine until “shall not be infringed” resumes.
32
posted on
02/16/2015 4:58:26 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
To: ctdonath2
there are going to be lawsuits filed all over the place from this. Its not armor piercing. So their whole argument is BS. Watch.
33
posted on
02/16/2015 5:10:46 PM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: servo1969
34
posted on
02/16/2015 5:50:10 PM PST
by
moovova
To: Georgia Girl 2
It has a steel core, therefore it is armor piercing under the law.
35
posted on
02/16/2015 5:54:25 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
To: servo1969
The statutory fix to this over reach by the BATFE ought to be simplesimply replace the words may be used with designed to be used in the relevant section of the GCA. Naturally, Obama would never sign such a fix as a stand-alone bill, so it must necessarily be attached to something he finds otherwise compelling enough to sign. This article misses some key information in the Federal statute U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) that specifies what materials makes up an AP round:
"Armor-piercing ammunition is defined as any projectile or projectile core that may be used in a handgun and that is constructed ENTIRELY from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. In addition, armor-piercing ammunition is defined as 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.
We know the M885 or SS109 are not "entirely" made of steel which is the tip and its core is made of lead. Those metals listed is what makes up an AP round and lead is not one of them. Furthermore, the jacket is much less that 25% of the weight of the projectile. The ATF has misidentified the M885 long ago as an AP round - likely subterfuge. We see their "proposal" is not supported by law. The ATF is making stuff up as they go.
To: Georgia Girl 2
there are going to be lawsuits filed all over the place from this. Its not armor piercing. So their whole argument is BS. Watch. You're correct. :-)
To: lostboy61
O.K. I’m gonna brag a little.....best shooting I’ve ever done.
Took my M-4 with red dot sight and cheap Russian ammo to the range. Crude benches and the berm was 100 yds downrange. 4 guys there and they had a variety of handguns and rifles. I waited probably 45 minutes or so to break my weapon out of the case. They had asked earlier if I wanted to shoot but I told them I would wait. I had been shooting a good bit at the time. A lot actually. So, they got done and started to put up their weapons. Range Clear!
There was about a 4x4 piece of anti-freeze bottle at the bottom of the berm. Wind must have been just right.....popped a 30 rd mag in and settled in. Started firing and chased the plastic up the berm. When it got to the top it would pop up 5 ft or so and slide back down to the bottom. When it hit bottom I would start firing again, chase it up the berm, up in the air and slide back down and start over again.
After about 20 rds one guy in behind me said “God-===” I finished the mag and one of the other guys says, behind me, “you ever seen anything like that?” “Hell, no.” say’s one of the other spectators. Pop in another mag and do it again. Take of my earmuff(amplified so I heard every thing they said) and said “Well I think the sight is still on” The four guys started clapping! Stuck my weapon in the case and left.
I was so cool that the M-4 barrel burned a hole right through the case. Got about 6 inches of plastic crap stuck to the barrel. Never told anyone about that! Never let’em see you sweat. Couldn’t do that again in a thousand years. I was in the zone and it does really happen.
38
posted on
02/16/2015 6:44:28 PM PST
by
saleman
(?)
To: ctdonath2
It has a penetrator yes but it is not armor piercing. It will not penetrate AR-500 ordinance steel plates.
39
posted on
02/16/2015 7:14:34 PM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: servo1969
ILLINOIS
ISRA Alert - Contact ATF: Oppose 5.56 M855 Ball Ammunition Ban
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced it is seeking to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” ATF is seeking public comment on the proposal, so all industry employees, target shooters and gun owners should contact ATF to oppose this unnecessary ban, which is truly a solution in search of a problem and that raises serious questions about executive agency attitude and overreach. Stopped cold on Capitol Hill, this action appears to be the Obama administration’s attempt to pursue gun control by other means.
Commonly available steel-core, “green tip” M855 and SS109 rifle ammunition that is primarily intended and regularly used for “sporting purposes,” like target shooting, has been exempt from federal law banning armor piercing ammunition for decades. There is no question that the 5.56 ball ammo has been in wide use by law abiding American citizens for sporting purposes.
It is with the increasing prevalence of handgun versions of rifle platforms, that ATF now apparently sees an opening to now ban the widely used M855 and SS109 ammunition.
It would be legally permissible to continue to possess and use so-defined “armor piercing” ammunition currently possessed. However, rescinding the decades-old exemption will have a major impact. It will become illegal to manufacture, import, distribute or sell at retail this very popular rifle target ammunition.
ATF’s proposed “framework” for applying the “sporting purpose” exemption test rewrites the law passed by Congress to disregard the manufacturer’s intention that a projectile or cartridge is “primarily intended for a supporting purpose.” ATF inappropriately places the focus on how criminals might misuse sporting ammunition in a handgun.
Just as disturbing, language used by ATF in its long white paper refers to criminals as a “consumer group.” The implication that the industry purposely sells firearms and ammunition to criminals is misleading and echoes the shopworn charges of the gun control lobby.
Manufacturers will face serious limitations in their ability to develop and market alternative ammunition in other popular hunting rounds, such as .308 rifle hunting ammunition, if ATF’s so-called “framework” is adopted. This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide, especially in California where a total ban on traditional ammunition for hunting is being phased in now.
ATF is soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while “minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety”. Under the proposed framework, 30-06 M2AP cartridges would continue to be exempt because there are no multi-shot handguns generally available that accept such ammunition.
The proposal is useless since standard lead-only 5.56 ammunition is “armor piercing” simply due to the round’s velocity. Rifles in this caliber, or any caliber for that matter, are rarely used in crimes.
ATF will accept comments on this proposal until March 16, 2015. Email or write ATF today and tell them you oppose this unnecessary, misguided and damaging ban on commonly used ammunition for America’s most popular sporting rifles.
Email: APAComments@atf.gov
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.
Courtesy of NSSF.org
Please donate to ISRA! Click Here!
Follow the ISRA on Twitter and Facebook.
Give the gift of an ISRA membership. Not an ISRA Member? Join Today!
http://www.isra.org/Events/AnnualEvents/iGOLD.aspx
40
posted on
02/17/2015 6:27:54 AM PST
by
KeyLargo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson