We need to read the following very, very carefully (quoted from the BATF website
- my highlighting):
ATF has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as "armor piercing ammunition".
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests to exempt certain projectiles from regulation as "armor piercing ammunition" under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In this regard, ATF is seeking public comments on specific projectiles or projectile cores which may be used in a handgun and which are constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten, alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium, and whether these projectiles or projectile cores pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement, or are, "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" and therefore may be exempted from classification as "armor piercing ammunition."
All interested persons may submit comments to APAComments@atf.gov by December 31, 2012. Comments not received by or before December 31, 2012 will not be considered. All comments must include your name and mailing address. Comments are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Compare the above with the actual statute, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i & ii):
(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.
The part I bolded, in the above quote, is not found in the actual statute (also quoted), at issue. The BATF simply does not have the authority to modify the statute to read it as the BATF having some authority to treat projectiles as a threat to public safety or law enforcement. It is however, what the lower courts have been successfully using to negate our rights in the many gun cases. While not outright hostile to projectiles, I see this as a (so far) court sanctioned power-grab.
We only have until Dec. 31st to respond to this action. As Glenn reminds us, we need to be polite and respectful. Yet we also need to be firm in our responses.