If you like your m855, you can keep your m855

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RugersGR8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
32,762
Reaction score
56,259
Location
NW OK
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo
BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo
Friday, February 13, 2015

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.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

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.


BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: [email protected]

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.


© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 1-800-392-8683(VOTE)
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,322
Reaction score
4,278
Location
OKC area
Public comments to the ATF are a waste of time.

It's time to blow up the phones of our Senators and Representatives. Tell them to use the power of the purse to reign in this out of control un-constitutional agency.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,511
Reaction score
15,923
Location
Collinsville
Agreed. However, I'd also be burning up the lines to the NRA/NSSF/SAMMI/manufacturers/dealers associations and major distributors to get on the ball. They need to do a blitzkrieg on BATFE and DoJ in the courts with injunctions and lawsuits in every district. Enough is enough. :(
 

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,619
Location
Norman
A good article on Article III (judicial) courts' deference to agency interpretations: https://mspbwatcharchive.files.word...ion-of-ambiguous-regulations-july-16-2013.pdf
Money quote:
[A] court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the
meaning of the words used is in doubt.... [T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation ... [a court’s] only tools, therefore, are the plain words of the regulation and any relevant interpretations of the Administrator
Quoted above:
constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip,
Emphasis added. I think there's good grounds for a legal challenge; the new interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the statute.
 

heat-ar

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
lawton
This is only the beginning on what they are going to try and do to us in the next 2 years. If this goes into effect they will move on to banning lead bullets because its bad for the environment.
 

Shadowrider

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
21,552
Reaction score
9,379
Location
Tornado Alley
That would be a huge hit to the plinker/cheap ammo market….Theres lots of M855 sitting around now that the .mil has gone to the M855A1 isn't there?

Well it ain't for sale. Not that I need any, but I did look around just for the hell of it and can't find a single round for sale. It's probably all on gunbroker by now at $1.25 per round. :rolleyes:

Edit: Yep, the GB craziness is underway.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom