ATF may try to reclassify M855...

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
Dub_James
Posts: 3833
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 am

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by Dub_James »

Please also post the URL for the comment submission page.
Oh, the heads that turn
Make my back burn
And those heads that turn
Make my back, make my back burn

-She Sells Sanctuary
The Cult
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by JAG2955 »

Dub_James wrote:Please also post the URL for the comment submission page.
Look on page 17 for an email address. And fuck them. Submit comments multiple ways, reworded of course. If it's anything like the 41P rule, they'll have so many that they are required to respond to, it will at least take a long time to implement. Give the manufacturers time to sell off their stock, retool their lines for M193, or develop a different style of 62 grain bullet (Using either no penetrator or a different type of metal).
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by blackeagle603 »

Spot on JAG.


Got be in it to win it. Now where did I put Duncan Hunters contact info...
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by JAG2955 »

Okay, can I attach a word doc...

I'm not sure if I stayed on topic enough, especially with my mention of the Sig Brace, but I wanted to keep it in there as I believe that this is retribution. I may keep it in for my Congressman/state government officials, but remove it for the senators. I don't want it to be distracting.
Your name
Your address
Your city
February 15, 2015

Congressman/Senator name
Address
Washington, DC 20515


Re: I oppose the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”,

Dear Congressman/Senator:

I am writing to alert you to a new troubling issue now affecting myself as well as thousands if not millions of other lawful gun owners. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has released their framework for determining the legality of certain projectiles (bullets) in loaded metallic cartridges. As written, this determination would ban the production and sale of a very popular cartridges and components, commonly known as M855 in loaded form, and SS109 bullet components, which are used in many 5.56 and .223 chambered rifles.

M855/SS109 had previously held an exemption to the “sporting purpose” clause and additionally did not ever meet the definition of “armor piercing ammunition in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(18)(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.

Now, the BATFE wants to classify M855/SS109 and many others as “armor piercing” because it may be loaded into a handgun that is not a single shot firearm. This would affect literally thousands of cartridges under their new framework as below.

Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a)(17)
With respect to the more than 30 requests received pursuant to section 478.148 that remain pending, the determination of whether to grant an exemption in a specific case will be made when the framework has been finalized. Those determinations will be conveyed separately to the respective requestors.

V. SUMMARY
When considering requests submitted pursuant to 27 CFR 478.148 to exempt ammunition that is “primarily intended for sporting purposes,” ATF intends to apply the following framework:

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.
The term “single shot handgun” means a break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer-type firearm.

Not only would this suppress the economic growth of firearms and cartridge manufacturers, the definition is so broad that BATFE may at any time designate many types of ammunition as “armor piercing.” Recently, due to the unmitigated fear of lead poisoning in wild animals, some states have passed laws restricting the use of lead ammunition. It is a fact that the new definition of “armor piercing” ammunition by the BATFE would suppress the development of new “green” ammunition. M855 ammunition has approximately 16% less lead than a bullet of comparable weight due to its construction.

Many individual states currently have “armor piercing” ammunition laws on the books. It is possible that through this new framework that many shooting enthusiasts would then be in violation of state law, in some cases becoming felons. M855 ammunition is so common that it is sold at locations ranging from small business owner stores to big box stores across the nation.

If the BATFE’s desire to promote officer safety is so genuine that they would restrict this very common cartridge, it is unfounded. The number of officers killed in the line of duty by M855 ammunition, especially fired from a handgun, is so small it is infinitesimal, compared to all other forms of line of duty deaths. Instead, I believe that this is retribution for the newest victories of gun-rights advocates. Recently, the BATFE had released a letter that would allow for a shooting “brace” for firing heavy pistols with one-hand. Shooting enthusiasts, desiring to stay within the law, wrote letters requesting clarification about the use of the shooting brace from the shoulder, an improvement that would allow individuals who lack the arm strength to continue the enjoyment of their hobby, which the BATFE approved. Then, when a competing design was approved, the BATFE responded in their letter that the shouldering of a shooting brace would be a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, making that individual a felon. It is notable now, that the BATFE argues it is the possibility of misuse, not the intent of a product that determines if it is legal, as they had previously argued that the intent of a product was the deciding factor in legality.

The hunting, shooting, and firearm collecting community has grown much stronger over recent years. We are normal people, each enjoying our hobby, profession, and culture in our own ways. Except for exceedingly rare cases, we are all law-abiding citizens who desire to remain as such. We believe strongly in the Second Amendment as a way to protect our family, put food on the table, enjoy our heritage and history, and ensure that tyranny does not come to this land that we love. This proposed framework only seeks to destroy all that and our way of life.

I urge you to respond to the BATFE and express your opposition to this new framework.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely,
Your Name
Looks like it lost some of the formatting, I can always email you a Word doc to send. Criticisms please, let's produce some good arguments to be heard.

BTW, I did this in about half an hour while I drank coffee. Less excuses, more action.
rightisright
Posts: 4286
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:41 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by rightisright »

Better get it now before Cheaper Than Dirt charges $2/round: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/8-DKG-A5569 :roll:
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by JAG2955 »

Probably 99% useless, as it's one of those whitehouse.gov petitions, but sign it anyways.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/XrvVh1cj
User avatar
First Shirt
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by First Shirt »

Both my senators and two congressmen (one where I live, and one where I work) have gotten an earful about this. I expect that at least two, possibly three of them will ignore me in hopes I go away.

But I have NEVER written, either letter or email, that did not get a response from Jeff Sessions. It might not be what I wanted to hear, might even be disagreeing with me on the matter, but he always responds, and the answer shows that he (or one of his staff) actually read what I wrote, and composed an appropriate response.

So, maybe he can do something. If he can't, I'm no worse off than I am now.
But there ain't many troubles that a man caint fix, with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six."
Lindy Cooper Wisdom
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by JAG2955 »

I tried calling my Congressman's DC office today...apparently there's some routing problem, as his official phone goes to some very unhappy woman who says "quit calling here!". :lol: At least people are contacting him for some reason.

I did call my local office, literally a mile and a quarter from where my parents' house is. Filled the lady's head full of information that I'm sure she didn't understand, but she said she'd contact them on my behalf. Letters are going in the mail today as well.
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by JAG2955 »

The plot thickens. Not really, it's just that it is being exposed for the giant turd that it really is.

From ARFCOM, poster TexasRifleman1985:
Timeline;

1986: BATFE issues an unnecessary exemption for M855. M855 never met the definition of AP under 18 U.S. Code § 921 (A) (17) (B).

2012 November: BATFE holds meetings about AP ammo, we know very little about these meetings so far.

2012 December: BATFE solicits for public comment related to new exemptions on AP status for Barnes Solids and other hunting projectiles. This solicitation for comment is presented under the guise of new exemptions, not rescinded exemptions or new restrictions.

2013 January: All references to said solicitation for public comment on the BATFEs website are removed, while other solicitations for public comment both before and after are left intact. The primary document is also removed.

2015 February: BATFE issues new edict stating that the exemption for M855 will be rescinded and claiming M855 meets the definition of AP under 18 U.S. Code § 921 (A) (17) (B). They state that the aforementioned meetings in November of 2012 were about this, and that public comments on the banning of M855 were solicited during December of 2012. Thus they do not solicit further comments on the legal status of M855, but rather they only solicit public comments on how M855 should be banned.


It's bullshit.

Mark my words, they will dismiss all comments on the subject of M855s legality under 18 U.S. Code § 921 (A) (17) (B) as not being relevant to the solicitation.

That is exactly what they are trying to pull here. Having to respond to all 30,000 comments on 41P must have been a real bitch. Now they are trying to set it up so they can dismiss 95% of our comments on this.
All found here: Page 82 Great signal to noise ration on that page. Ignore the whiners talking about gouging and price panics and such in that thread.

The ATF proposal needs to get enough visibility that it can be brought before a judge.
Johnnyreb
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:02 am

Re: ATF may try to reclassify M855...

Post by Johnnyreb »

Got home a few minutes back and saw Fox News website has posted the story. Pretty short story, but at least now more people know.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02 ... -15-rifle/

I remember back in the 1st term, when Obama was making a lot of gun banning noises and ammo taxing noises, 60 US Senators got together and wrote him a letter telling him the Senate was truly not interested in starting a Civil War.

Well I think they better do that letter again, and damned fast, along with promises of arrest for violation of the 2nd Amendment under the Rico laws about engaging in criminal conspiracy. If Obama and BATF does this and some part or other of the govt does not stop this cold with the ending of careers by much firing and stripping of pensions and some actual impeaching. Well... will it be time yet?

You know, the Supreme Court has made several 9-0 rulings against Obama, even the liberal justices know he has to be stopped. It would sure be nice if they started actively ordering this to be stopped. Started issuing warrants for arrests on the charge of conspiracy to violate the oath of office. Probably won't happen, but it would sure be nice.
Post Reply